Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3680
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HULUVADI G. RAMESH, RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, JJ.
Capt M.S. Krishna Kumar Lakshmi Krishna - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.A. No. 1648, 1649, 1650, 1651 of 2016, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 6342, 20412 of 2016
Decided On : 28-09-2018
Capt M.S. Krishna Kumar, Adv., J. Madanagopal Rao, Adv., N.G.R. Prasad, Adv.
The role of a Check Pilot is subject to review and does not guarantee permanency. The decision of the Grievance Committee does not bind the Training Committee, and the Training Committee's decision cannot be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Check Pilot - Employment Dispute - Civil Aviation Requirements (C.A.R) Series 1 Part 11 Section 7 - The judgment discusses the appellant's request to restore his Check Pilot license and promote him to the post of Instructor. The court analyzed the recommendations of the Grievance Committee, the order of the Training Committee, and the Circular 02 of 2013 issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation. The court found that the role of a Check Pilot is subject to review and does not guarantee permanency. It held that the decision of the Grievance Committee does not bind the Training Committee, and the Training Committee's decision cannot be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a pilot, sought restoration of his Check Pilot license and promotion to the post of Instructor. His Check Pilot license was removed due to an issue with a cheque payment and alleged misconduct. The court dismissed the writ petitions and review applications filed by the appellant, leading to the filing of writ appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the role of a Check Pilot is subject to review and does not guarantee permanency. It held that the decision of the Grievance Committee does not bind the Training Committee, and the Training Committee's decision cannot be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the restoration of the appellant's Check Pilot license, the authority of the Grievance Committee, and the Training Committee's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the role of a Check Pilot is subject to review and does not guarantee permanency. It found that the decision of the Grievance Committee does not bind the Training Committee, and the Training Committee's decision cannot be subjected to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ appeals, stating that the dismissal does not prevent the respondents from considering the appellant's request for Check Pilotship upon satisfaction of his compliance and performance.
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
1. W.A.No.1648 of 2016 is filed against the order of dismissal passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.32885 of 2014, dated 15.06.2016. The prayer in W.P.No.32885 of 2014 is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 therein to implement the recommendations of the Grievance Committee dated 14.03.2014 in letter and spirit and thereby restore the writ appellant's Check Pilot license including other monetary benefits and promote him to the post of Instructor within a specified time frame.
2. W.A.No.1649 of 2016 is filed against the order of dismissal passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.124 of 2016, dated 15.06.2016. The prayer in W.P.No.124 of 2016 is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to set aside the proceedings of the Training Committee headed by the fifth respondent dated 02.02.2015 and consequently, direct the fifth respondent to restore the Check-Pilot [the name is changed to Line Training Captain (L.T.C)] as per Civil Aviation Requirements (C.A.R) Series 1 Part 11 Section 7 with Standardisation and revalidation for Line Training Captain which includes other consequential benefits with more emphasis on average instructional hours and monetary benefits and to promote the appellant to the next post of instructor, after necessary Training as per Civil Aviation Regulation, within a specified time frame.
3. W.A.No.1650 of 2016 is filed against the order of dismissal passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.79 of 2016 in respect of W.P.No.32885 of 2014, while W.A.No.1651 of 2016 is filed against the order of dismissal passed in Review Petition No.80 of 2016 in respect of W.P.No.124 of 2016.
4. In toto, the relief sought for by the appellant/party-in-person is for a direction to implement the recommendations of the Grievance Committee retrospectively and to set aside the order passed by the fifth respondent, whereby he was removed from the post of Check-Pilot [new name is Line Training Captain (L.T.C.)] with conditions therein and to restore the seniority and promote the appellant to the next post of Instructor.
5. The facts leading to filling of the writ appeals and the review petitions are as follows:-
(i) The appellant joined Air India Limited (Formerly Indian Airlines Limited) as a trainee pilot on 07.08.1989 after acquiring Commercial Pilot License. Over a period of time, he was upgraded as First-Officer, Captain and Check Pilot as per seniority procedure followed in the Airlines and he was working as a Check Pilot from 09.06.2010. The appellant is having the flying experience of 18500 hours. While so, his Check Pilot was removed on 13.10.2011, by the Executive Director (Training), for stopping payment of a cheque issued by the appellant towards his wife's Airbus-320 training, which was alleged to have been forged by the fifth respondent in W.P.No.124 of 2016 for which, a separate writ petition in W.P.No.33 of 2015 was filed before this Court and an order was also passed to investigate the training, on 28.10.2015. Without assigning any reason, the appellant's Check Pilot was removed vide letter dated 20.10.2011 by the fourth respondent in W.P.No.32885 of 2014 (and sixth respondent in W.P.No.124 of 2016), as against which, the appellant had filed a grievance application dated 02.01.2014 before the fourth respondent in W.P.No.32885 of 2014 (and sixth respondent in W.P.No.124 of 2016) and on 14.03.2014, Grievance Committee decided that "The status of Check Pilot must be restored from the date it was stopped and payment be made of the allowances from the date it was stopped". If the appellant's Check Pilot status is restored to him as per the recommendations of the Grievance Committee, his name will be included in the list. In view of the actions and inactions on the part of the respondents, the appellant was not called for training to the next grade of Instructor. It is needless to state that his juniors were being upgraded to the next
