TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 4t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by way of clarification, learned Single Judge had merely reiterated and directed implementation of the 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 chaos....