JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition, Petitioner seeks the following reliefs against Air India Limited (“AIL”):-

“a) Direct to the respondents to promote on the post/designation to which the petitioner deserve to according the procedure which has been applied in the promotion of the other employees whosoever junior to the petitioner.

b) Direct to the respondent to provide all they facilities scale/salaries/bonus etc which is applicable for the promote post from the date on which the petitioner supposed to hand to be appointed with the rules and regulations followed in the case of other employees in the promotion.”

2. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as a result of the disinvestment process initiated by the Government of India, AIL has ceased to be a public body and therefore, no writ can lie against AIL in the circumstances that exist today. 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 that stage that the present writ petition was filed, however, in light of the position that obtains today, where AIL has been privatised and the entire shareholding of the Government of India in AIL has been transferred to M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd., (a wholly owned subsidiary of M/s. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd.), no writ petition can lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as AIL is no longer a public body or Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In order to support the submissions, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel relies on a judgment of this Court in Naresh Kumar Beri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3585, relevant para of which is as under:

“23. The Court also finds merit in the second objection which was addressed on behalf of the respondents who had contended that since AIL had ceased to be a government company by virtue of the exercise of privatization noted above, the writ petition itself would cease to be maintainable. This Court notes that High Courts of the country appear to have consistently taken this position as would be manifest from a reading of the decision rendered in R.S.

Madireddy by the Bombay High Court and Tarun Kumar Banerjee by the Karnataka High Court. The said position has also been duly reiterated in the judgments rendered by our Court in Asulal Loya, Ladley Mohan and Satya Sagar. The writ petition would thus warrant dismissal on this score also.”

3. Mr. Dileep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, per contra, submits that the judgment relied upon by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. It is also submitted that the present petition was filed in the year 2020 and Petitioner cannot be blamed for the intervening circumstances and should not be non-suited at this stage, especially looking at the fact that the claim relates to promotion/seniority, pay scale, etc. and the Petitioner is suffering due to the impugned actions of the Respondents.

4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds merit in the preliminary objection raised by Respondents No. 1 and 2 to the maintainability of the writ petition. It cannot be disputed by the Petitioner that during the pendency of the present writ petition, on 27.01.2022, 100% shareholding of AIL has been acquired by M/s. Talace Pvt. Ltd. and AIL has ceased to be a Government controlled company and is thus no longer amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The aforementioned judgment squarely covers the present case in favour of the Responde