IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8505 OF 2014 CAPTAIN G.S. BINDRA APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS AIR INDIA THROUGH CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi, dated 01.10.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.656 of 2012, by which the intra-court appeal preferred by the appellant herein came to be dismissed thereby affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, dismissing the Writ Petition (C) No.4625 of 1997, preferred by the appellant herein.

CHANDRESH Date: 2025.11.03 Reason: 1

2. We take notice of the fact that the appellant herein was serving as a Pilot in the Indian Air Force.

3. After serving for about 25 years, his services came to an end with the Indian Air force as a Wing Commander.

4. At the relevant point of time, M/s. Vayudoot Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, was formed for the purpose of providing air services as a Feeder Airline to the smaller stations by smaller aircraft.

5. M/s. Vayudoot Ltd. was in need of Pilots and had approached Indian Air Force for the same.

6. Sometime in January/March, 1987, the appellant was appointed in M/s. Vayudoot Ltd. While he was serving with M/s. Vayudoot Ltd., few issues relating to his service conditions cropped up.

7. It appears that in 1991, one another Company by name M/s. Continental Airlines Ltd. requested M/s. Vayudoot Ltd. to allow some Pilots of their company to fly for their airlines. The appellant is said to have applied for permission to fly for M/s. Continental Airlines.

8. The record reveals that he worked with M/s.

Continental Airlines for sometime.

9. On 14^th September, 1992, a departmental chargesheet came to be served to the appellant herein with the allegations that he had undertaken employment with M/s.Continental Airlines without permission.

10. The appellant was also placed under suspension vide the order dated 30.4.1993.

11. It needs to be noted that although the departmental chargesheet was served with charges of insubordination etc., yet this departmental inquiry never got concluded.

12. In the aforesaid background, the appellant went before the High Court of Delhi and prayed for the following reliefs:-

“a). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the order of suspension of the petitioner. b). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. c). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to perform his duties and undertake flying of aircraft. d). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondent to pay all wages dues and allowances including all arrears to the petitioner forthwith. e). pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed."

13. The writ petition filed by the appellant herein was opposed by M/s. Indian Airlines on various grounds. The writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeal.

14. The LPA also ultimately came to be dismissed vide the impugned judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court.

15. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal.

16. The appellant has appeared in person. On the other hand, Mr. Dhruv Dewan and Ms. Neena Gupta, the learned counsel, have appeared on behalf of the respondent-Air India.

17. It is not in dispute that the appellant served as a Pilot with the Indian Air Force for a period of about 25 years. As on date, the appellant is aged 84.

18. The appellant believes that for no good reason he was placed under