Capt. Gurdeep Singh Tiwana & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

1. Present writ petitions have been filed by the Petitioners seeking the following reliefs and on account of common reliefs and issues raised, both petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment:- “W.P. (C) 6280/2021 a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to undertake all actions, which are necessary to ensure full and final settlement of, and immediate payment of the amounts due to the Petitioners, along with interest @ 12% per annum; b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to carry out full and final settlement with the Petitioners and make payments of all amounts due to the Petitioners, including the unpaid Flying Allowance and Layover Subsistence Allowance, along with interest thereon; W.P. (C) 6507/2021 a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to undertake all actions, which are necessary to ensure full and final settlement of, and immediate payment of the amounts due to, the Petitioner, along with interest @ 12% per annum; b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to carry out full and final settlement with the Petitioner and make payments of all amounts due to the Petitioner, including the unpaid Flying Allowance and Layover Subsistence Allowance, along with interest thereon.”

2. Appearing on behalf of AIL, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, learned Senior Counsel, raises an objection to the maintainabilityof the writ petitions against AIL, owing to the disinvestment process initiated by the Government of India. It is submitted that originally AIL was a statutory body constituted under the Air Corporations Act, 1953, however, post its repeal and in terms of the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994, it had become a wholly owned company of the Government of India.It is at this stage that the present writ petitions were filed and rightly entertained. However, now AIL has been privatised and the entire shareholding of the Governmentof India in AIL has been transferred to M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd., (a wholly owned subsidiaryof M/s. Tata Sons Pvt.Ltd.) and thus having ceased to be a Public Body or Authoritywithin themeaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, AIL is no longer amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court underArticle226 of the Constitution.In support of the objection,reliance is placed on the judgment of a CoordinateBench of this Court in Naresh Kumar Beri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3585, where this issue was examined and after deliberating on the stands of the respective parties, writ petition was dismissed. Operative para of the judgement is as follows:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the writ petitions were filed in the year 2021 and ought not to be dismissed only because AIL has now been privatized. An apprehension is also expressed as to who would be liable in case the Petitioners were to succeed in establishingtheir claims in the Forum which they would now approach for seekingredressal.

4. In order to allay the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Nayyar submits that the apprehension is wholly misplaced inasmuch as, if the Petitioners were to succeed before the Appropriate Forum, the liability shall rest entirely on AIL.

5. Having heard the learnedSeniorCounsel for AIL and counsel for the Petitioners, the question that pronouncedly emanates is whether the writ petitions are liable to dismissed on ground of maintainability, in wake of the admitted position that during the pendency of thesepetitions,on 27.01.2022, 100% shareholding of Air India has been acquired by M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd. and Air India has ceased to be a Government controlled company. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Naresh Kumar Beri (supra) has already examined this issue andheld that writ petition ceases to be maintainable. The judgement squarely covers the present cases and this Court is not persuaded to take a different view. It is true that when the writ petitions were filed, they were maintainable as AIL was amenable to the writ jurisdiction,however,under thechanged scenario,this Court is precluded from issuinga writ of mandamus against AIL.

6. Having said that, I may also pen down that the fears of the Petitioners are not wrongwhen they question as to who would bear the liability in case the Petitioners were to take recourse to other remedies in a different Forum and succeed. This concern or disquiet, is put to rest by the assurance given on behalf of AIL, that in the event of the Petitioners succeeding in establishing their claims, the liability shall be borne by AIL. The assurance given on behalf of AIL is taken on record and needless to stateshall bind the said Respondent.

7. In view of the aforesaid, writ petitions along with pending applications are dismissed,granting liberty to the Petitioners to take recourse to remedies available to them in law, in an appropriate Forum. It is made clear that the time period, for which the writ petitions have been pending in thisCourt, will be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation,should the Petitioners seek any remedy by instituting fresh proceedings in a Forum wherequestion of limitation will be relevant and mayarise.

JYOTI SINGH, J FEBRUARY 17, 2023/