Judgement

KHALID, J.:- In this writ petition, filed by an Air India employee, who at the relevant time was Deputy Chief Air Hostess, notice was taken for the respondents when the matter came up for admission. We directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavit. Accordingly counter-affidavit has been filed. The petitioner has filed her rejoinder affidavit also. Heard the learned counsel on both sides at some length.

2. Under the existing rules namely Regn. 46(1)(c) of the Service Regulation the petitioner was to retire on 28-2-1987 and in fact she retired on that date. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the letter sent to her retiring her on 28-2-1987, to declare Regn. 46(1)(c) ultra vires, to direct reconsideration of the decision in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza, (1982) 1 SCR 438 : (AIR 1981 SC 1829) and to declare that the petitioner will retire only on her attaining the age of 58 years.

3. Identical questions were raised before this Court in a few writ petitions earlier by some other employees of Air India and they were considered at length by a bench of three Judges in Air India v. Nargesh Meerza and were considered in favour of Air India. We are bound by this decision. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this decision needs reconsideration and made a fervent appeal to us to refer the matter for that purpose. We do not feel persuaded to accept this request.

4. The main thrust of the submissions by the petitioners counsel is based on Art. 14 and Art. 15 of the Constitution of India, in that Air India discriminates between the Air Hostesses and the officers like the petitioner of Indian origin and of foreign origin who are employees of Air India. The contention is that while the employees of Indian origin have to retire at 35 years with extension till 45, those of foreign origin can go beyond 45 years. This contention also was considered by this Court in the decision referred above.

5. The case that Air Hostess recruited outside India can be in the employment of Air India beyond 45 years is met in the counter-affidavit in the following paragraph :

"............Therefore, I submit that so far as Air India is concerned, it has not fixed any higher retirement age for Air Hostesses who are recruited outside India. In U.K. there are only six Air Hostesses and they are also being phased out. The senior-most Air Hostess in U.K. in terms of age is 41 years old. It is further pertinent to note that there are only six Air Hostesses presently employed in U.K. These Air Hostesses belong to different nationalities and speak different European languages with a view of dealing with passengers conversant only with these languages. I say that Air India has been encouraging its Indian Air Hostesses to learn European languages. In view of this position Air India is in the process of phasing out the European Air Hostesses employed in U.K. It is also pertinent to note that Air India has appointed a few Air Hostesses in Japan. These Air Hostesses were also appointed for the same reason i.e. their knowledge of the Japanese language. The Air Hostesses employed in Japan would also retire upon reaching the normal age of retirement applicable to Indian Air Hostesses. I say that the service conditions and terms of appointment of the Air Hostesses appointed abroad are different than the service conditions of Air Hostesses appointed in India. It is of utmost importance to note that no Air Hostess appointed is promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Air Hostess, Additional Chief Air Hostess or Chief Air Hostess. These promotional avenues are available only to the Air Hostesses appointed in India ............"

6. From the above extract we find that Air Indias policy now is to phase out Air Hostesses recruited outside India and restore uniformity in their retirement age. In U.K. there are only six Air Hostesses, the senior most among whom is only aged 41. The provisions of Sex Discrimination Act, 1975. applicable to United Kingdom was