High Court · 2025

3' K.Padma Rao, S/o Sri K,lsthari, Senior Technical Assistant (Emp.No.6165a1) lndian Air..Lines Ltd., HYderabad. 4'J.SeshaSai'S/oSriJ.J.P.Sastry,SeniorTechnicalAssistant (Emp.No.616508), lndian Air Lines Ltd., Hyderabad'

5. N.Balakrishna Rao, Sio N.P.Subrahmanyeswara Rao, Senior Technical - 6. c.sanieeva Prasad, S/o C.V.L.Prasada Rao, Engineering support officer n.!Gt"nt tEmp.No.61691 5)' lndian Air Lines Ltd ' Hyderabad' (Empt. No.680168), lndian Air Lines Ltd., Hyderabad' .....PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 4 lndian Airlines Ltd., Head Quarters, Airlines House 1 13, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi rep., by its Managing Director' The Director, Engineering, lndian Air Lines Ltd , Head Quarters, Air Lines House, r tS,'Guridwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi' The Regional Director, lndian Air Lines Ltd., Southern Road, Air Lines House, vteLnarioat<t<am, Madras. TheDirector,Personnel,lndianAirLinesLtd',HeadQuarters,AirLines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi' The General Manager (Engineering), lndian Air Lines Ltd , Southern Region' Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be n I service benefits att pleased to issue a Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of g the action of the respondents in not paying the attendant mandamus, declari ched to the post of Senior Technical Assistants of Technical Cadre, though they are entitled for the same in terms of judgments of this Hon'ble Cou( in WP No.8090/'1992 dated 1611111999 and WP No.6760/2001 dt.3t9t2oo1 confirmed in WA 143312001 dated 191612002 as arbitrary, iilegat, improper and u nco nstitutio na I and further declare that the petitioners are entifled for the attendant benefits as detailed in the schedule annexed to the material papers filed along with the writ petition. l.A.NO:1 OF 2005 (WPMP.NO: 15007 0F 2005) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith pay all the attendant benefits including pLl to Senior Technical Assistants on par with other Technical Cadre Employees as described in the schedule pending disposal of this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI N.BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondents : M/s V.UMA DEVI The Court made the following ORDER (-) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 11773 OF 2OO5 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is Frled_ questioning the action of respondent in not paying attendant service benefits attached to the post of Senior Technical Assistants of Technical Cadre though they are entitled for the same in terms of judgments of this Hon'b1e Court in Writ Petition No. 8090 of 1992 dated 16.11.1999 and Writ Petition No. 6760 of 2OOl dated 03.09.2001 confirmed in Writ Appeal No 1433 of 20Oi dated 19.O6.2OO2 as arbitrary and illegal. Further, a declaration is sought that petitioners are entitled for attendant benefits as rctained in the schedule.

2. On receipt of notice, respondents filed counter affidavit denying the allegations and explaining the reasons for not entitlement of the benehts as sought by petitioncrs.

3. Heard Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu, Iearned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri N.Bharat Babu, learned counsel for petitioners 4 Learned Standing Counsel lor respondent Ms V.Uma Dcvi has brought to the notice of this Court the 2 ^t t judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in lfe R.S. Madireddg u. UOI, rvherein it is observed that respondent Organization i.e. AIR India Limited is a Statutory Body under thc Air Corporations Act, 1953. With the repeal of 1853 Act by the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1994, the Air India merged u,ith Indian Airlines and consequently, respondent Organization became a wholly Government-owned Company, thus came undr:r the category of other alrthorities, within the mcaning ol Article l2 of thc Constitution of India. Howevcr, on 08.10.2021, lhc Government of India has announced that it had acccpted the bid of Talace lnclia h.t. Ltd. to purchase its 10096 shares in respondent Organization. The rea[fer, on 27 .O1,.2022, the share purchasc agreemcnt rr,,as signed with Talace India Pvt. Ltd., wherein looo/o equity shares of the (iovenrmenL of India in AIR India Limited u,erre purchased by Talace India Private Limited and thereb.r,, respondent Organization was privatizcd and disinvested by the Government of India. Consequently, respondent Organization ceased to be a State or its instrumentality within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution. Once respond ent Organization is ceased to be ' 202+ SCC online SC 965 I i i i J covered by the dehnition of 'State', it could not have been subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as the Article itself would make it abundantiy clear that direction, orders or Writs including the Writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto and Prohibition to any authority of State or instrumentalities of State, bul not to a Private Limited Company'

5. Therefore, this Writ Petition, which was instituted on 23.01.20O5, bv u'hich time the respondent Organization rvas already privatized, is not maintainable under Article 226 oi the Constitution of India. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as

6. "37. The respondent No'3 (AlL), the erstwhile Government run airtine having been taken over by the private comPany Talace India R't' Ltd ' unquestionablv, is not performing any public duty inasmuch as it has takcn over the Government company Air lndia Limited for the purpose of commercial operations, plain and simple, and thus no writ petition is maintainabte against respondent No.3 (AIL) '" Learned Standing Counsel further brought to the

7. notice of the Court that writ petition was instituted against Air India, subsequently which has been renamed as Air India' however, no cause title was amended Therefore, she submitted I t 4 that no Writ Pctition lies agair-rst Indian Airlines as well as Air (' India which is a private owned company.

8. I n vie w of the above settled proposition of law, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Writ Petition {rled against AIR India as not maintainable.

9. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed, granting liberty to petitioner to approach appropnate Forum for redressal of their grievance, as per larv. Hou,ever, it is needlcss to mention that it is alu'avs open for respondents to consider Appeals/ representations file d br. petitioncrs, in ac<:ordance with law. No costs.

10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. i l I ) I //TRUE COPY// SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To One CC to SRI N.BHARAT BABU, Advocate I One CC to M/s. V.UMA DEVI, Advocate [OPUC Two CD Copies 1 2 3 SA GJP l+ \ \ g ) o ,j 1 HE sra 14: bR 2 B IIAY ZO25 (1( z a * 9t S ;: ^,7 {+ * gO HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 ORDER WP.No.11773 ot 2005 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT GOSTS. ?'t @ 2-o i\