REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6903    OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4420 of 2006)

K.A. ANSARI & ANR. — APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. — RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

D.K. JAIN, J.:

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against two common orders, dated

21st November, 2005, passed by the High Court of Delhi at

New Delhi in L.P.A. Nos. 1135 and 1136 of 2005.  By the

impugned orders, the High Court has allowed the appeals,

preferred  by  the  Indian  Airlines  Limited,  the  sole

1

respondent in this appeal,  against the order passed by a

learned Single Judge of the High Court in the miscellaneous

application  filed  by  the  first  appellant  herein,  seeking

clarification of the final judgment rendered by the learned

Single Judge on 11th October,  2004.  The Division Bench

has  held  that  after  disposal  of  the  writ  petitions,

miscellaneous application was not maintainable and, hence

order  dated 4th March,  2005 on the said application was

without jurisdiction.

3. In  order  to  appreciate  the  controversy,  it  would  be

necessary  to  recapitulate  the background facts,  stated  in

detail by the learned Single Judge.  These are as follows:   

The appellants were appointed as Field Officers  by the

Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Directorate  of

Agricultural Aviation in the years  1978 and 1979.   On 24th

July,  1987,  they  were  transferred  under  the  administrative

control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation.  M/s Vayudoot Limited

(for  short  ‘Vayudoot’),  a  public  sector  undertaking,  was

incorporated in the year 1981.  In the year 1988, the assets of

2

the  Directorate  of  Agricultural  Aviation  were  transferred  to

Vayudoot.  As a result thereof, the services of the officers of

Directorate  of  Civil  Aviation  were  placed  at  the  disposal  of

Vayudoot, on deputation.  The deputation was on same terms

and conditions including pay and allowances as were being

received by the appellants under the Ministry of Civil Aviation.

4. On  8th April,  1988,  posts  of  the  appellants  were  re-

designated as Operation Officers.  Again on 9th May, 1989,

the designation of the appellants was changed to Assistant

Manager. Appellant No.1 - K.P.S. Rathore, was selected as a

trainee  pilot  on 1st January,  1989 and was confirmed as

such with effect from 1st November, 1990.  Appellant No.2 -

K.A.  Ansari,  was appointed  as  a junior  pilot  on 1st July,

1990  and  was  confirmed  as  such  with  effect  from  1st

October, 1990.

5. It appears that in the year 1993, the Government of India

took  a  policy  decision  to  merge  Vayudoot  with  Indian

Airlines.   On  24th May,  1994,  Ministry  of  Civil  Aviation

issued an order conveying the decision of the Government

3

that the process of absorption of the Vayudoot employees

shall  commence  by  31st June,  1994  with  certain

relaxations/benefits  to  them  on  joining  the  new

organisation.  The benefits included protection of basic pay

drawn by the employees  of Vayudoot  at the time of their

absorption in Indian Airlines.   

6. It  seems  that  the  employees  of  Vayudoot,  who  were

absorbed  in  the  Indian  Airlines  in  a  separately  created

‘Short Haul Operations Department’, referred to as ‘SHOD’

by the learned Single Judge, demanded integration with the

existing  employees  of  Indian Airlines.   They claimed that

they had a right to be promoted to the next corresponding

post  with  the  existing  employees  of  Indian  Airlines  by

including the service rendered by them under Vayudoot.  As

expected,  the  integration  was  opposed  by  the  existing

employees  of  the Indian Airlines.   Negotiations were held

and in the meeting held on 10th March, 1988, one of the

decisions’ taken was as under:

“  PILOT   

4

1. SHOD pilots will  undergo training in IA aircraft and on getting type endorsement will  be  placed  at  the  bottom  of  the seniority  of  First  Officers  (Co-Pilots). However,  their  past  services  will  be counted for the purpose of pay protection and other financial benefit.  Their future growth will be on the basis of the line of seniority.   The  IA  will  take  necessary action to initiate  their  training within a period of one month.

2. Pilots  who  fail  to  obtain  licence endorsement  as  per  IA  rules  will  be retained in SHOD.  Such pilots may be provided appropriate ground job.  Their basic pay and allowances in such cases will be protected.  The proposal is based on the basis of the policy adopted by the company  while  phasing  out  turboprop aircraft in 1982.

3. Four executive Pilot will remain in SHOD and will be sent on deputation to Alliance Air.  After acquiring training and getting Boeing  endorsement  they  will  be appointed  as  Co-Pilots.   Their  pay  and allowances and status will be protected.”

7. Thereafter, some more decisions were taken, with which we

are not directly concerned in this appeal except to note that

in  order  to  find  an  amicable  solution  to  the

demands/grievances  of  the  employees  of  Indian  Airlines

and SHOD, in the meetings held on 21st April,  1998 and

5

16th March, 2000, it was decided that the SHOD employees

will have to complete their training and obtain the licence to

fly  an  Indian  Airlines’  aircraft  in  three  attempts.

Accordingly,  vide  communication  dated  6th September,

2001  the  appellants  were  informed  that  since  they  had

failed in two attempts, their training was being terminated

and they would revert to SHOD with immediate effect.  The

appellants  protested,  inter  alia,  on  the  ground  that  they

were  entitled  to  three  opportunities,  instead  of  two,  to

obtain the requisite licence.   However,  on 15th November,

2002,  the  appellants  were  directed  to  appear  for  an

interview  for  selection  to  the  post  of  Assistant  Manager

(Flight Safety).  The said action on the part of the Indian

Airlines was questioned by the appellants by preferring writ

petitions in the High Court.  Their plea was that as per the

agreed arrangement, they had to be given three chances to

obtain the licence endorsement and in the alternative they

had a right to be automatically  inducted in a ground job

post  of  equivalent  status  with  protection  of  pay  and

allowances.  Notwithstanding the filing of the writ petitions,

6

the  appellants  joined  on  the  post  of  Assistant  Manager

(Flight Safety), offered to them in terms of the letter issued

by the respondent on 23rd April, 2003, which contained the

following note:

“Please note that you are being given this last and final, opportunity to accept our offer of appointment as Asstt. Manager (Flight Safety) with protection of basic  pay.   If  you  fail  to  report  for  Medical Examination by the  stipulated  date  as  mentioned above,  it  will  be  presumed  that  you  are  not interested  in  the  alternate  employment  as  a rehabilitation measure offered by the Management and  the  Management  would  be  constrained  to terminate your services.”

8. Be that as it may, ultimately the writ petitions preferred by

the appellants were disposed of by the learned Single Judge

on 11th October, 2004 in the following terms:

“Petitioners  on  failing  3  tests  are  undoubtedly entitled to be automatically placed for a ground job with benefit of past service.  This grounding cannot be  at  a  post  lower  in  the  scale  held  by  the petitioners.  Since no material has been placed to show  what  was  the  scale  of  post  of  Assistant Manager (Flight Safety), writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) Petitioners would be entitled to benefit of past service right from inception when they joined

7

service  under  Government  of  India  for purposes of all terminal benefits and in-service benefits linked to length of service.

(ii) Petitioners would be entitled to be posted to a post in equivalent scale held by them when letter dated 23.4.2003 was issued.

(iii) Petitioners  would  be  entitled  to  basic  pay protection.

(iv) If as a result of direction (ii) above, petitioners are to be put in a post of higher grade, arrears of pay  and  allowances  would  be  paid  within  6 weeks from today.

(v) Petitioners  would  be  entitled  (only)  to  the allowances for the ground post in which they are to be posted.”

9. On  25th November,  2004,  appellant  -  K.A.  Ansari,

communicated  the  said  order  to  the  Chairman-cum-

Managing Director of the Indian Airlines, requesting for his

posting  to  a  post  in  the  equivalent  scale,  i.e.  Deputy

Manager,  in  terms  of  direction  (ii),  extracted  above,  with

consequential  relief.   In  response  thereto,  the  Indian

Airlines informed him that he had been placed in the proper

scale and his basic pay was duly protected in terms of the

aforenoted direction (iii) and service rendered in Vayudoot

8

shall  also  be  taken into  consideration for  the purpose  of

gratuity,  provident  fund,  loans,  advances  and  medical

facilities etc.

10. Not  being  fully  satisfied  with  the  response  of  the  Indian

Airlines,  the  first  appellant  moved  a  miscellaneous

application before the High Court, seeking a direction to the

respondent to place him in a ground job in the equivalent

pay scale of Deputy Manager, as directed in the final order

dated  11th October,  2004.   In  short  the  grievance  of  the

applicant  was  that  although  on  23rd April,  2003,  when

Indian  Airlines  had  asked  him  to  join  on  the  post  of

Assistant Manager (Flight Safety),  he was in the grade of

Rs.6200-175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025  but  he

had been placed in the pay scale of Rs.5675-175-6550-200-

7500-225-7775-250-8025.

11. After  notice  to  the  Indian  Airlines,  as  noted  earlier,  the

learned Single Judge disposed of the application vide order

dated 4th March, 2005. Inter alia, observing that counsel for

the Indian Airlines had not disputed that when letter dated

9

23rd April, 2003 was issued to the appellants they were in

the  grade  of  Rs.6200-175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-

8025, the learned Single Judge disposed of the application

with the following directions to the Indian Airlines:-

“It  is  not  being  in  dispute  that  when  letter dated 23.4.2003 was issued petitioner being a first officer  was in the pay scale  of Rs.6200- 175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025.

Accordingly, petitioner on ground would have to be placed in the said scale.

As this court understands the law to be, if the cadre  of  a  person  is  changed  he  would  be entitled to an equivalent pay scale and in the absence of an equivalent pay scale would be entitled to be placed in the next above scale.

Scale in which the respondent seeks to place the petitioner is Rs.5675-175-6550-200-7500- 225-7775-250-8025.  The fact that the upper limit  of  the  two  scales  i.e.,  6200-175-6550- 200-7500-225-7775-250-8025,  and  Rs.5675- 175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025  is the same is immaterial.

Application  for  directions  is  accordingly disposed of directing Indian Airlines to,  after grounding, place the petitioner in the pay scale held by the petitioner i.e., Rs.6200-175-6550- 200-7500-225-7775-250-8025.  In no case the petitioner  be  placed  in  a  scale  lower  to  the scale aforesaid.  However, it is clarified that on grounding, if pay scale of Rs.6200-175-6550- 175-6550-200-7500-225-7775-250-8025  is

10

not  available,  petitioner  would  have  to  be placed in the next higher grade.”

12.Aggrieved  thereby,  the  Indian  Airlines  filed  intra-court

appeal and as noted above, the Division Bench has reversed

the said order.  That is how the appellants have come up

before us in this appeal.

13.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

14. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the  appellants  submitted  that  the  Division  Bench  of  the

High Court  failed to appreciate  that in the miscellaneous

application,  no  new  dispute  requiring  fresh  adjudication

had been raised.  The relief claimed in the application was

only in the nature of clarification to the extent that because

of protection of the pay scales at the time of absorption in

the  Indian  Airlines,  the  appellants  were  entitled  for

placement  in  an  equivalent  or  higher  pay  scale.   It  was

asserted that by way of clarification, learned Single Judge

had merely reiterated and directed implementation of  the

11

directions issued while disposing of the writ petitions.  It

was also pleaded that the main order dated 11th October,

2004, having attained finality, the respondent is otherwise

bound to comply with the same.

15. Per  contra,  Mr.  R.S.  Suri,  learned  counsel  appearing  on

behalf  of  the Indian Airlines,  supporting the order  of  the

Division Bench, submitted that when the proceedings stood

terminated on final disposal of the writ petitions, it was not

open to the learned Single Judge to reopen the proceedings

on filing of the miscellaneous application by the appellant

in respect of the same subject matter.   

16. It is trite that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a

judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh

decision of the case.  It needs little emphasis that when the

proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ

petition,  it  is  not  open  to  the  Court  to  reopen  the

proceedings  by  means  of  miscellaneous  application  in

respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action.  If

this principle is not followed, there would be confusion and

12

chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have

any meaning.  (See:  State of Uttar Pradesh  Vs.  Brahm

Datt Sharma & Anr.1 ).   At the same time,  there is  no

prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order

is not clear and the party against whom it has been made is

trying to take advantage because the order is couched in

ambiguous or equivocal words.

17.Therefore,  the  question  for  consideration  in  the  instant

case is whether the miscellaneous application preferred by

the first appellant could be said to be founded on a fresh

cause of action?

18. Having  bestowed  our  anxious  consideration  on  the  rival

submissions, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the

terms  of  final  order  dated  11th October,  2004,  the

miscellaneous application could not be said to be founded

on a separate or fresh cause of action so as to fall foul of

the  aforenoted  legal  position  viz.  on  termination  of

proceedings by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open

1 (1987) 2 SCC 179

13

to  the  court  to  reopen  the  proceedings  by  means  of  a

miscellaneous  application  in  respect  of  a  matter  which

provided  fresh  cause  of  action.   It  is  manifest  that  in

direction  No.  (ii),  the  learned  Single  Judge  had  clearly

directed that the writ  petitioners would be entitled ‘to be

posted to a post in equivalent scale held by them when the

letter dated 23rd April, 2003 was issued.’  The respondent -

Indian Airlines was obliged to obey and implement the said

direction.  If  they had any doubt or if  the order was not

clear; it was always open to them to approach the court for

clarification of the said order.  Without challenging the said

direction or seeking clarification, Indian Airlines could not

circumvent the same on any ground whatsoever.  Difficulty

in  implementation  of  an  order  passed  by  the  Court,

howsoever, grave its effect may be, is no answer for its non-

implementation.  In  our  opinion,  in  the  miscellaneous

application, no fresh relief, on the basis of a new cause of

action,  had been  sought.   It  was an application filed  for

pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the

writ  petition,  namely,  placement  in  appropriate  grade  in

14

which  he  was  placed  at  the  time  when  letter  dated  23rd

April,  2003,  was issued.   This was precisely done by the

learned Single Judge vide his order dated 4th March, 2005.

Without examining those factual aspects of the matter, in

our judgment, the Division Bench was in error in holding

that after the disposal of the writ petitions, miscellaneous

application  was  not  maintainable  and  the  only  remedy

available to the appellant was to approach the authorities

and if his interpretation was not acceptable to them, then

he could file a fresh writ petition.

19. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside

the  order  of  the  Appellate  Bench  and  restore  the  order

passed  by the  learned  Single  Judge  on 4th March,  2005,

directing  the  respondent  to  implement  the  main  order,

dated 11th October, 2004.  In the circumstances of the case,

the parties shall bear their own costs.

…………………………………………J.        (D. K. JAIN)  

15

                              ..….…………………………………….J.        (P. SATHASIVAM)

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 28, 2008.

16