R. S. Madireddy S/o Mr. Kotyswara Rao Madireddy vs Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DIPANKAR DATTA, M. S. KARNIK, JJ.
Mr. R.S. Madireddy S/o Mr. Kotyswara Rao Madireddy and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Jurisdiction Writ Petition No.1770 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 1536 of 2013, Interim Application (L) No.25662, 25824, 25788 of 2022 In Writ Petition No. 123, 844 of 2014, Notice Of Motion No. 363 of 2016, 263 of 2013, 198 of 2019
Decided on : 20-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Singhvi, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Rohini Thyagarajan, Pankaj Sutar and Ms. Shanvi Punamiya i/b. M/s. Jayakar and Partners
For the Respondent: Mr. Dashrath A. Dube, Mr. Darius Khambhata, Mr. Kevic Setalvad, a/w Mr. Aditya Mehta, Sneha Prabhu, Mr. S.D. Shetty, Mr. Rakesh Singh, Mr. Ravi Kini, Shristi Shetty and Jehan Lalkaka i/by. M.V. Kini & Co., Mr. Muralidhar Khadilkar a/w. Mr. Aakash Joshi

Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PRIVATIZATION OF AIR INDIA - JURISDICTION - PUBLIC DUTY - COLLUSION - AMENDMENT OF WRIT PETITIONS - IMPLEADMENT OF AIR INDIA ASSETS HOLDING LTD. (AIAHL) - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - PUBLIC FUNCTION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:

4 writ petitions were filed by former cabin crew members of Air India (AIL) against AIL and the Union of India (UoI) for alleged stagnation in pay, non-promotion, anomalies in pay fixation, and delay in payment of wage revision arrears. The petitions were maintainable when instituted but during their pendency, AIL was privatized. The question arose whether the petitions were still maintainable.
Finding of the Court:

1. The maintainability of a writ petition is determined based on the facts as they existed on the date of its institution. However, subsequent events may render the petition non-maintainable if they have a fundamental impact on the exercise of jurisdiction by the court. 2. A writ petition against a private entity is maintainable if it discharges a public duty or function. 3. Collusion between the respondents to defeat the rights of the petitioners would render the respondents amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. 4. Amendment of writ petitions may be allowed to implead necessary parties or incorporate relevant facts, but the amendments must be substantial. 5. Impleading AIAHL in the present writ petitions would not lead to any relief since AIAHL is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. 6. The petitioners' employment with AIL, though initially public in nature, ceased to be so after the privatization of AIL. 7. AIL does not discharge any public function or duty.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the privatization of AIL? 2. Whether AIL discharged a public duty or function? 3. Whether there was collusion between AIL and UoI to defeat the rights of the petitioners? 4. Whether the writ petitions could be amended to implead AIAHL? 5. Whether the petitioners' employment with AIL was public in nature?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The maintainability of a writ petition is determined based on the facts as they existed on the date of its institution. However, subsequent events may render the petition non-maintainable if they have a fundamental impact on the exercise of jurisdiction by the court. 2. A writ petition against a private entity is maintainable if it discharges a public duty or function. 3. Collusion between the respondents to defeat the rights of the petitioners would render the respondents amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. 4. Amendment of writ petitions may be allowed to implead necessary parties or incorporate relevant facts, but the amendments must be substantial. 5. Impleading AIAHL in the present writ petitions would not lead to any relief since AIAHL is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court. 6. The petitioners' employment with AIL, though initially public in nature, ceased to be so after the privatization of AIL. 7. AIL does not discharge any public function or duty.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners were granted liberty to explore their remedy in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

Introduction:

1. We have heard these 4 (four) writ petitions together on the point of their maintainability as on date the same were finally considered by us and propose to decide the same by this common judgment and order.

2. As we shall presently notice, writs were prayed for against Air India Ltd. (hereafter “AIL”, for short), being the employer of all these petitioners. When these writ petitions were instituted, the same were maintainable. No objection was taken then. However, now the maintainability of these writ petitions has been questioned. The objection to the maintainability of these writ petitions stems from the fact of privatization of AIL during the pendency of the same.

3. The fundamental question that emerges from such objection is this: whether it is an invariable rule that a writ petition has to be decided on the basis of the facts as they were on the date of its institution or whether intervening/subsequent event(s), having a fundamental impact on exercise of jurisdiction for granting relief by this Court, may render the writ petition non-maintainable?

4. Before proceeding to decide the question, it would be essential to note in brief the respective claims of the 4 (four) set of petitioners.

Brief Facts:

5. All these writ petitions were instituted by persons formerly employed by AIL as members of its cabin crew force. AIL is a respondent in each of the 4 (four) petitions. Union of India (hereafter “UoI”, for short) is also a respondent in all the petitions. The petitioners came to be employed by AIL from the late 1980s and all of them have retired between 2016 and 2018.

6. Writ Petition Nos. 123 of 2014 and 844 of 2014, which were filed on 30th August 2013 and 9th October 2013, respectively, essentially arise out of alleged stagnation in pay and non-promotion of the petitioners. However, Writ Petition No. 844 of 2014 additionally pertains to the anomalies in the fixation of pay arising out of (and due to the implementation of) the report of the Justice Dharmadhikari Committee, which was constituted by the UoI (through its Ministry of Civil Aviation) to harmonize the differential service conditions of AIL and Indian Airlines Ltd., which came to be merged.

7. Writ Petition Nos. 1770 of 2011 and 1536 of 2013, instituted on 14th June 2011 and 19th March 2013, respectively, pertain to delay in payment of wage revision arrears and the withdrawal of 8 (eight) of the 17 (seventeen) allowances already paid to the petitioners retrospectively. Given the petitioners’ subsequent retirement from service, the claims in the petitions are restricted to arrears of pay and allowances.

8. Each of the writ petitions plead violations of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. AIL has filed affidavits-in-reply to Writ Petition Nos. 123 of 2014 and 1536 of 2013. Affidavits-in-reply to the remaining two writ petitions have neither been filed by AIL nor by UoI.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

10. Mr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners urged that the question of maintainability of the writ petitions has to be decided with reference to the dates of their institution. He contended that it is now a settled proposition of law that the jurisdiction and maintainability of a matter must ordinarily be decided with reference to facts as on the date on which it was filed. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770, Om Prakash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256, Kedar Nath Agarwal vs. Dhanraji Devi, (2004) 8 SCC 76 and Ishar Singh vs. National Fertilizers, AIR 1991 SC 1546.

11. According to Mr. Singhvi, subsequent events as laid down in successive decisions of the Supreme Court may be taken conscious cognizance of only in the following circumstances:

(a) The relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate.

(b) It is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order