K.A. ANSARI & ANR. versus INDIAN AIRLINES LTD.

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 28-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 780 
A 
. K.A. ANSARI & ANR. 
-t;· 
.~ 
v. 
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6903 of 2008) 
8 
NOVEMBER 28, 2008 
[D.K. JAIN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
"< 
Practice and Procedure - Miscellaneous application, in 
finally disposed of writ petition - Maintainability of - Direction 
c of court in a writ petition to post employees in equivalent scale 
- Non-implementation of order by the employer- Employee's 
application seeking clarification of the order - Held: It is not 
open to court to reopen a proceeding in finally disposed of 
writ petition in respect of matter having fresh cause of action 
D - But it is permissible for a party to seek clarification of final 
order - The application in the instant case was for seeking 
clarification of final order and was not having any fresh cause 
of action - Hence, maintainable - Constitution of India, 1950 
' 
,.... Article 226 - Service Law - Pay. 
f 
E 
After merger of a Public Sector Undertaking, of 
which the appellants were employees, with respondent-
'Airlines, the employees of the Undertaking were observed 
in the respondent-Airlines in Short Hand Operation 
F 
Department (SHOD). The absorbed employees demanded 
integration with the existing employees of the 
respondent-Airlines. The same was opposed by the 
'!--
existing employees of the respondent-Airlines. In the 
meetings it.was decided that the absorbed employees 
were required to complete their training and obtain 
G licence to fly the respondent-Airlines Aircraft in .t~ree 
attempts. Appellants were informed that since they failed 
~ 
in two attempts, their training was being terminated and 
,.;.. 
r 
they would revert to SHOD. They were later required to 
appear for an interview for selection to the post of 
H 
780 
,,, 
' 
_, 
K.A. ANSARI & ANR. v. INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. 
781 
,. + 
Assistant Manager (Flight Safety). 
A 
Appellants questioned the same, by filing a writ 
petition on the ground that they were entitled to three 
chances for obtaining licence In the alternative they had 
a right to be automatically placed in the equivalent a 
ground job post with protection of pay and allowances. 
Despite the filing of writ petition, appellants joined the 
post of Asstt. Manager (Flight Safety) offered to them in 
terms of letter dated April 23, 2003. Single Judge of High 
Court disposed of the petition inter a/ia holding that the c 
appellants were entitled to a post in an equivalent scale. 
One of the appellants, on the basis of the order of High 
Court, requested the respondent-Airlines to post him in 
equivalent scale. Respondent-Airlines informed him that 
he had been placed in proper scale an~ his basic pay was 
duly protected. 
D 
Appellants filed miscellaneous application seeking a 
> 
direction to the respondent, to place him in a ground job 
+ 
in equivalent pay scale. He stated that he had been asked 
to join in the pay scale of Rs.5675-8025 while on the date E, 
he was offered the post on ground duty, he was in the 
pay scale of Rs.6200-8025. Single Judge disposed of the 
application with the direction to absorb the appellants in 
the pay scale of Rs.6200-8025 and if such scale was not 
available in ground duty, they were to be placed in the 
F 
next higher grade. Intra-Court appeal by the respondent 
was allowed. Hence, the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is trite that a party is not entitled to seek 
a review of a judgment merely for the purpose of G 
.. 
rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. When· the 
.... 
- ... 
proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ 
-1 
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. 
H 
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A If this principle is not followed, there would be confusion 
and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease 
to have any meaning. 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 
B 
m~de is trying to take advantage because the order is 
couched in ambiguous or equivocal words. (Para 16] 
(790-C-E] 
1.2. Keeping in view the terms of final order passed 
by Single Judge of High Court, the miscellaneous 
C application could not be said to be founded on a separate 
or fresh cause of action so as to fall foul of the legal 
position viz. on termination of proce

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.