Airport Authorities of India (AAI) v. T. Venu and others (W.A. Nos. 1827, 1936 & 1950 of 2022)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **THURSDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023/22ND POUSHA, 1944** **W.A.NO.1827 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2022 IN W.P(C).NO.28905/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR), RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003** - **2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003** - **3 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695008** **BY SRI.S.MANU, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 RATHEESH BABU E AGED 43 YEARS S/O. K. KRISHNAN NAIR ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (CNS) AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695024** **2 LEKSHMI K.O. AGED 43 YEARS W/O. RATHEESH BABU E. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (CNS), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 2 ::** **INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695008** **BY ADV.SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2023 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1936/2022 AND W.A.NO.1950/2022, THE COURT ON 12.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 3 ::** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **THURSDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023/22ND POUSHA, 1944** ## **W.A.NO.1936 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2022 IN W.P.(C).NO.29517/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,** **RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003** - **2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR), AAI, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003** - **3 REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SOUTHERN REGION, CHENNAI, PIN - 600027** - **4 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001** - **5 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA** **TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 4 ::** **BY ADV.SRI.S.MANU** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:** **T. VENU AGED 53 YEARS H/O. K.K. GHEETHA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, (CNS), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001** **BY ADV.SMT.CELINE JOSEPH** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2023 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1827/2022 AND W.A.NO.1950/2022, THE COURT ON 12.1.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 5 ::** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **THURSDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023/ 22ND POUSHA, 1944** ## **W.A.NO.1950 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2022 IN WP(C).NO.27846/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,** - **RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, PIN - 110003** - **2 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (HR), AAI, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003** - **3 REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SOUTHERN REGION, CHENNAI, PIN - 600027** - **4 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695024** - **5 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PORT BLAIR AIRPORT, ANDAMAN AND NOCOBAR, PIN - 744101** - **6 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 6 ::** ## **CALICUT, PIN - 673647** - **7 STATION IN-CHARGE-CO-ORDINATION-IN-CHARGE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI, PIN - 683585** - **8 GENERAL MANAGER (HR) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CHENNAI, MEENAMBAKKAM, PIN - 600027** - **9 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,** **COIMBATORE AIRPORT, PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE, PIN - 641104** - **10 AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TIRUPATI AIRPORT, AP, RENIGUNTA, PIN - 517520** - **11 AIRPORT IN-CHARGE** - **AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, LINGPUI AIRPORT, LINGPUI, MIZORAM, PIN - 796410** - **12 THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, EASTERN REGION SCB, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, PIN - 700052** - **13 THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NORTH EASTERN REGION, GUWAHATI AIRPORT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN - 781015** **BY SRI.S.MANU, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 MRS. SELEN V. PETER AGED 56 YEARS** - **W/O.O.V. MARXIS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASST. GENERAL** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 7 ::** **MANAGER (COMMUNICATION-OPS), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT, PIN - 673647** - **2 MR. O.V. MARXIS AGED 57 YEARS** - **S/O. O.V. VARGHESE, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (ATM) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT, PIN - 673647** - **3 MR. NINU SOMAN AGED 38 YEARS** - **S/O. SOMAN, C.N. PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASST. MANAGER (ATM) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT, PIN - 673647** - **4 MRS. NEENA P AGED 38 YEARS** - **W/O.NINU SOMAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANAGER (COM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CALICUT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CALICUT, PIN - 673647** - **5 MRS. JITHI S. HARI AGED 44 YEARS** - **W/O SAJALA CHANDRANARAYANA, MANAGER (ENGINEERING-CIVIL), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PRESENTLY POSTED AT TIRUPATI AIRPORT, RENIGUNDA AP- 517 520, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SREEHARI, T.C.30/146, ANAYARA P.O. TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695024** - **6 MR. SEJALA CHANDRANARAYANA AGED 44 YEARS** - **S/O. S.BEEMA LINGANNA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANAGER (ENGINEERING-CIVIL), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PRESENTLY POSTED AT TITUPATI AIRPORT, RENIGUNDA AP-517 520, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT SREEHARI T.C.30/146, ANAYARA P.O. TIRVANDRUM, PIN – 695029** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 8 ::** - **7 MRS. SIMI V AGED 37 YEARS** - **W/O ANOOP KUMAR S, MANAGER (ENGINEERING-CIVIL) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **8 MR. ANOOP KUMAR S AGED 42 YEARS** - **S/O. M.N SANALKUMAR NAIR, SENIOR MANAGER (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **9 LATHA R AGED 56 YEARS** - **W/O R.N. PANICKER, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **10 MR. R.N. PANICKER AGED 63 YEARS** - **S/O LATE NARAYANAN PILLAI, ASST. GENERAL (MANAGER, CNS RTD), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT T.C 42/392 (3) ADDRESS.TRS-43, THAVALODE LINE, SREEVARAHAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695008** - **11 MRS. ELIZABETH JOSEPH AGED 58 YEARS** - **W/O B. SANAL KUMAR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, VSI AIRPORT PORTBLAIR, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT T.C.42/392 (4), PIN - 744103** ## **12 MR. B. SANAL KUMAR AGED 58 YEARS** - **S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695029** - **13 K. GEETHA AGED 55 YEARS W/O C.R. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER,** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 9 ::** **CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI, PIN - 683585** ## **14 MRS. ANITHA C AGED 55 YEARS** - **W/O S. VENUGOPAL, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI, PIN - 683585** - **15 MR. S. VENUGOPAL AGED 62 YEARS** - **S/O (LATE) V. SUKUMARAN NAIR, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CNS), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI, PIN - 683585** - **16 MRS. JYOTHI M AGED 50 YEARS** - **W/O M.A. SALIM, JOINT GENERAL MANAGER, CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **17 MR. M.A SALIM AGED 53 YEARS** - **S/O ABDUL RAHMAN M.S, JOINT GENERAL MANAGER, CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **18 MRS. CHITHRAJA C AGED 39 YEARS** **W/O MAJO, MANAGER, CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **19 MR. MAJO AGED 40 YEARS** - **S/O JOSE, SENIOR MANAGER (ATM), AAI, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COIMBATORE AIRPORT, PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KOLLANNUR HOUSE, KOONAMUCHI P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680504** - **20 MRS. JOLLY A.I** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 10 ::** ## **AGED 58 YEARS** **W/O THOMAS K. THOMAS, WORKING AS JOINT GENERAL MANAGER, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI, PIN - 683585** ## **21 MR. THOMAS K. THOMAS AGED 64 YEARS** - **S/O T.T. THOMAS, JGM (ATM) RETD. AAI, RESIDING AT 6N-DD PLATINUM PLANET, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT T.C. 42/392 (3) ADDRESS: TRA-43, THAVALODE LINE, SREEVARAHAM, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695008** - **22** - **NANDINI N AGED 54 YEARS** - **W/O A.I. NANDAKUMAR, ASST. MANAGER (FACILITATION), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **23 MRS. GEETHA K AGED 55 YEARS** **ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (CNS), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **24 MRS. SHYLAJA K.J AGED 58 YEARS W/O K.K. VIJAJAKUMAR, ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **25 MR. K.K. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 62 YEARS** **DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CNS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **26 MRS. SOBHA M.G AGED 47 YEARS** - **W/O KRISHNANKUTTY R., SENIOR ATTENDANT (N), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 11 ::** ## **INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **27 MR. KRISHNANKUTTY R AGED 55 YEARS** - **S/O K. RAMAN (LATE), SUPDT (HR), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **28 MRS. LATHA MURALI NAIR** - **AGED 57 YEARS** **W/O MURALI K NAIR, ASST. HOUSE KEEPER AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **29 MR. MURALI K NAIR AGED 60 YEARS** **S/O KRISHNAN NAIR, SR. SUPDT (TELECOM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **30 MRS. LEKHA T AGED 55 YEARS** - **W/O PREMIJITH L., ASST. MANAGER (HR), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** **31 MR. PREMJITH L S/O (LATE) L LOHITHASWAN, ASST. GM (ENGINEERING-E) ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE DIVISION, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **32 MRS. LALI C.G AGED 49 YEARS** **W/O HARIKUMAR A, SENIOR SUPDT, (HR), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** ## **33 MR. HARIKUMAR A AGED 54 YEARS** **S/O APPUKUTTAN C, PRESENTLY WORKING AS AM (OPS)** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 12 ::** **AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHENNAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, CHENNAI, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT T.C 12/1345, SOUPARNIKA, AIKYA NAGAR, KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHYOOR P.O. TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695035** - **34** ## **MRS. LISAMMA ANTONY AGED 61 YEARS** **W/O IDICULLA EAPPEN, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CNS) AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** ## **35 MR. IDICULA EAPPEN AGED 63 YEARS** **S/O (LATE) M.I. EAPPEN, RETD., JOINT GM (CNS), AAI RESIDING AT MAMMOOTTIL-26/1 MANAVA NAGAR, PETTAH P.O. TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695024** - **36 MRS. SMITHA T AGED 52 YEARS** - **W/O DILIPKUMAR D, JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (CNS), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** ## **37 MR. DILIPKUMAR D AGED 55 YEARS** - **S/O DAMODHARAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JOINT GENERAL MANAGER (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV GANDHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-66, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT UR-22,UPPALAM ROAD, STATUE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001** - **38 MRS. SHIBINA R AGED 35 YEARS** **W/O SAMJITH KUMAR K.V, MANAGER (CNS), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** ## **39 MR. SAMJITH KUMAR K.V AGED 38 YEARS** - **S/O K.K. VIJAYAN, MANAGER (CNS), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 13 ::** ## **TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **40 MRS. NAIDA H. NAZMUDEEN AGED 36 YEARS** - **W/O NIZAM C.B. JE (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **41 MR. NIZAM C.B AGED 41 YEARS** **S/O BASHEER RAWTHER C.M, SM (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **42 MRS. ANJANA KORAPPATH AGED 28 YEARS** - **W/O KIRAN R. DAS, JE (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI,, PIN - 683585** - **43 MR. KIRAN R DAS AGED 30 YEARS** - **S/O K.R. DAS, AM (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI, PIN - 683585** - **44 MRS. MINI P AGED 44 YEARS** - **W/O VASUDEVAN A, AGM (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI, PIN - 683585** - **45 MR. VASUDEVAN A AGED 43 YEARS** **S/O JAYARAMAN A, AGM (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI, PIN - 683585** - **46 MRS. REVATHY R.S AGED 30 YEARS** - **W/O KUMARAGURU V, JE (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 14 ::** **INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695029** - **47 MR. KUMARAGURU V** **AGED 32 YEARS** **S/O. VENKITACHALAM G, JE (ATM), AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TRIVANDRUM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695209** **BY ADV.SMT.CELINE JOSEPH** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2023 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1936/2022 AND W.A.NO.1827/2022, THE COURT ON 12.01.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 15 ::** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** As these writ appeals involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ appeals are as follows: The writ petitioners were employees, both present and retired, of the Airport Authority of India [AAI], an authority established under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. The AAI had framed the Airport Authority of India (Employees Medical Attendance and Treatment) Regulations, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as the '2003 Regulations'] to provide for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the employees and their dependent family members. Certain provisions of the said Scheme require to be noticed, and they are extracted herein below: - “ **2. Definitions:-** (1) In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires,- - (h) “Employee” means a whole time employee of the Authority; **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 16 ::** - (i) “Family” means a employee's wife or husband, as the case may be, and parents (not step parents), children and step children, adopted children (if adoption is permissible under Personal law), sister, widowed sister, widowed daughter, minor brothers, wholly dependent on the employee as per the laid down conditions for dependency; - (k) “Medical Attendance” means attendance by an Authorised medical Officer or any other registered Medical Practitioner possessing minimum qualification as Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery/Bachelor of Dental Surgery/Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine System/Bachelor of Unani Medicine System in a hospital or Nursing Home or at clinic or at the residence of the employee and includes any examination for the purpose of diagnosis and/or treatment as may be considered necessary by the said Medical Officer or Practitioner; - (o) “Treatment” means the use of medical and/or surgical facilities as are considered necessary by the Authorised Medical Attendant and includes,- - (i) the employment of pathological, bacteriological, radiological and other methods; - (ii) the supply of medicines, vaccines, sera or other therapeutic substances; - (iii) ordinary dental treatment except supply of dentures, crown work, bridge work, orthodontic work and other specialized dental work; - (iv) treatment of eyes and testing of eye sight except supply of spectacles; - (v) prenatal, confinement and post-natal treatment; - (vi) insulin treatment in the case of patients suffering from diabetes recommended by concerned specialist and whenever required; - (vii) anti-rabbi treatment; - (viii) ordinary nursing and hospital accommodation appropriate to the status of the employee; and - (ix) special tests or investigations referred by concerned specialist.” **3. Conditions for dependency.-** (1) A member of the family whose total income from all sources, including pension, temporary increase on pension or stipend, etc. does not exceed Rs.1500/- per month is deemed to be wholly dependent on the employee. However, husband and wife shall be considered as one unit for the purpose of these regulations and dependency limit shall not be applicable to wife or husband. ## **11. No reimbursement shall be admissible in the following cases:-** - (i) Diet charges - (ii) Conveyance Charges, and - (iii) Charges incurred in respect of an attendant at the hospital. **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 17 ::** **12. Out patient treatment** - (1) Employees may receive medical attendance and treatment from private registered practitioners of their choice for Allopathic, Homeopathy, Ayurvedic and Unani treatment and actual fees charged by the Doctors shall be reimbursed subject to the limit fixed from time to time and also restrictions in each financial year to one month Basic Pay Plus Dearness Allowance (as on 1[st] April) of the employee. AAI may also empanel Authorized Medical Officer or Registered Medical Practitioners for out patient treatment and put restrictions. - (2) The restriction of one month's basic pay plus Dearness Allowance in each financial year is with reference to routine type of medical treatment. However, the cost of the medicines for special/life threatening diseases as decided from time to time shall not be considered while computing the ceiling of one month's Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance (as on 1[st] April) in each financial year for out patient treatment and also can put restriction as and when required. - (3) Minimum qualifications for Registered Medical Practitioners/Authorised Medical Officer will be Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) and Bachelor of Dental Surgery for Allopathy, Bachelor of Hemeopathic Medical Sciences for Homeopathy, Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medical Sciences for Ayurvedic and Bachelor of Unani Medical Sciences for Unani system of medicines and for Specialists shall be Doctor of Medicine or Medical Surgeon or above. - (4) Where the condition of the patient so requires Registered Medical Practitioner/Authorised Medical Attendant can refer to nearest private specialist for treatment at the clinic. **13. Indoor Treatment:** - (1) In cases of Hospitalization, the patient may be admitted to the Hospitals or Nursing Homes. - (2) The entitlement of room rent charges applicable for indoor treatment for the employees and their dependents in Government or Private Institutional Hospitals, Nursing Homes empannelled by the Authority shall be as fixed from time to time. **18. Medical benefit scheme for retired employees:-** The employees shall be entitled for medical benefits for themselves and their spouse subsequent to their retirement on superannuation on contributory basis as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme. (Though the option once exercised shall be final, however the request to opt the medical benefits under these Regulations) shall be decided on merit of each case if the son or daughter or spouse of the retired employee is working in the Authority and is willing subject to meeting the other laid down conditions.) **19. Other conditions of medical facilities etc.** - The conditions of medical facilities of an employee in respect of matters for which no provision is made under these regulations shall be the same as may for the time being be applicable to other employees of the Government of India of a corresponding status. **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 18 ::** **20. Power to relax.-** When the Chairperson is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the provisions of these regulations with respect to any class or category of employees. By a notification dated 21.1.2011 [Ext.P2], the perks and allowances of Executives was revised with effect from 26.11.2008. Among other things, the provision for medical allowance was revised as follows: ## “11. **Medical Allowance** ## 11.1. OPD/Domicile Medical Treatment - 11.1 A new scheme of medical reimbursement with annual ceiling on self certification basis for OPD/Domicile Medical Treatment to be paid on monthly basis is introduced as under: |_Pay Scale_|_Annual Ceiling_| |---|---| |16400-40500|<br>Rs.30000| |20600-46500|<br>Rs.32000| |24900-50500|<br>Rs.34000| |29100-54500|<br>Rs.36000| |32900-58000|<br>Rs.38000| |36600-62000|<br>Rs.40000| |43200-66000|<br>Rs.42000| |51300-73000|<br>Rs.44000| |62000-80000|<br>Rs.45000| |Chairman and Board Members Rs.50000|| - 11.1.2. The annual ceiling payable on certification is inclusive of reimbursement towards pathological tests and other investigations on OPD basis. ## 11.2 Reimbursement – Chronic diseases - 11.2.1 The actual reimbursement of medical expenditure incurred towards chronic diseases in addition to the above monthly reimbursement will continue to be paid as per the existing policy. The chronic diseases need to be necessarily certified by AAI Medical Officer. **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 19 ::** - 11.2.2 At Airports where no AAI Medical Officer is available, the Officer-In-Charge/Airport Director shall issue sanction order for chronic diseases based on recommendation of Doctor concerned. - 11.2.3 The annual reimbursement on outdoor medical bills will be applicable from the date of issues of this order. - 11.2.4 With the introduction of medical reimbursement scheme on self certification, the existing system of reimbursement for OPD stands dispensed with. The review of annual ceiling limit will be made after five years with the condition that the increase in no case be more than 15% of the annual ceiling proposed at para 11.1 above. The next revision will be allowed w.e.f 01.01.2014. - 11.3 Indoor Treatment - 11.3.1 The existing facility will continue, however, room rent entitlement will be reviewed while finalising empanelment of hospitals.” Sometime in 2014, it came to the notice of AAI that in cases where the husband and wife were both employed with the Authority, they were each claiming medical reimbursement/allowances separately on behalf of themselves and their dependents notwithstanding the provision in Regulation 3 of Ext.P1 which mandated that husband and wife would be considered as one unit for the purposes of claiming medical benefits. The AAI therefore issued Ext.P3 communication dated 19.5.2015 informing employees that OPD medical allowances could not be claimed by both husband and wife if both were employed in AAI and that such duplicate payments already made would be recovered. These directions were impugned in a batch of writ petitions that were disposed by Ext.P4 common judgment that found that in the light of **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 20 ::** the specific provisions in the 2003 Regulations [Ext.P1], the clauses in Ext.P2 notification could not be seen as enabling both the husband and wife to separately claim medical allowances for themselves and their dependent family members. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. In the appeals against the said judgment however, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the Single Judge on the following reasoning: “6. We have heard both the counsels and we feel that there is some genuine confusion. It cannot be denied that employment is a matter of contract as between the employee and the employer. Merely because a husband and wife are both employed under the same employer, the concept and the jurisprudence of employment does not change. The employment contracts framed are independent and individual. But, at the same time, there cannot be duplication of claims. For example, the husband by nature of his employment and conditions of employment is entitled to house rent allowance. The house rent allowance is for the husband as an employee and his family. The wife, if posted at the same station and residing with her husband, cannot thus claim house rent allowance over and above her husband. The condition may be different if they are posted at different stations, or otherwise there would be duplication. 7. Now when we come to Clause 11 this is not an allowance, in the sense that whether or not expense is incurred, it is to be paid. Clause 11.1.1 would itself show that it is a **medical reimbursement with annual ceiling** . Therefore, it is reimbursement of actual expenses with a annual ceiling. From that we can understand is that the annual ceiling between the range of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/-, as the case may be, is available for actual expenses incurred and would include the family/dependent and obviously the spouse. But, when both the spouses are employed, can it be said that for the same expenses incurred, both the husband and wife could claim reimbursement. The answer is obviously no, in as much as duplication of reimbursement is not at all contemplated nor permissible. Thus one thing is clear that for expenses incurred, there can be only one source of reimbursement and the same cannot be claimed again by the other spouse. But there is a difference which would be clear from the illustration given herein. 8. We could do no better than illustrate the arbitrariness of Ext.P2, **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 21 ::** which restricts the claim of medical allowances/reimbursement to one of the spouses only, in case where both the spouses are under employment of the Airport authority. As also the arbitrariness of direction to recover, as contained in paragraph 2 of Ext.P2, where medical reimbursement have been independently claimed by both the spouses instead of through one only. 9. Let us consider the case of two individuals; a male employee (A) and a female employee (B). If the two are not married, each would independently be entitled to a medical reimbursement subject to the ceiling provided independent of each other. Thus, if the ceiling be Rs.30,000/- and (A) incurs expenses of Rs.20,000/-, he would get full reimbursement of Rs.20,000. At the same time, in the same financial year (B) would similarly get reimbursement of Rs.20,000/- for medical expenses incurred by her. The sum total of the medical reimbursement received by (A) and (B), who are not married, would be a sum of Rs.40,000/-. They may be in a live-in relationship or divorced. But, the movement (A) and (B) gets into holy matrimony, they are put to disadvantage. (A) being the husband and (B) being the wife, would not have to make a declaration to claim medical benefits only on one of their accounts and in default of that option, it would be the husband's account. 10. If we refer back to the illustration, what will now happen? The maximum ceiling in one account is Rs.30,000/-. Either the wife's full medical reimbursement would be curtailed to Rs.10,000/- or the husband's medical reimbursement would be curtailed to Rs.10,000/-. Thus seen, upon holy matrimony, they would be put to serious disadvantage. This is what is arbitrary. It is for this reason we have held that medical reimbursement is an individual entitlement and by reason of matrimony parties cannot be put to disadvantage. A caveat would be necessary. Parties being entitled to independent claims there cannot be duplication of the claim, in the sense, the wife cannot claim her medical reimbursement from her account as her own independent claim and then for the same event, claim through her husband's account showing herself to be the dependent spouse. That would be duplication of claim and is impermissible. Thus, the circular to the extent to which it directs recovery of amount , when the same is claimed by both the spouses is bad to the extent indicated above. It could apply only in case of duplication of claims and not otherwise. 11. Thus, we have to hold that there cannot be any discrimination or any arbitrary application of the provisions in relation to medical allowances / reimbursement putting persons to disadvantage merely by reason of marriage. To the extent indicated above, we modify the judgment of the learned single Judge and to the limited extent indicated above, the appeal stands allowed. Consequently, no amount should be sought to be recovered unless they are beyond individual limits or there is duplicity of claim for reimbursement.” **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 22 ::** 2. The Special Leave Petition [SLP] preferred by the AAI against the said judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. In view of the dismissal of the SLP, the AAI decided to extend the medical allowance to both husband and wife who were the petitioners in the case before the Court till 31.3.2019. With effect from 7.2.2019, however, the AAI brought out a new Circular [Ext.P9] announcing a revised medical policy that was to operate in partial modification of the earlier policy. Essentially, the revised policy gave an option to the employees and retired employees to choose from among two Schemes namely, Scheme 'A' that envisaged reimbursement on submission of bills and Scheme 'B' that envisaged a reimbursement on the basis of an undertaking. Under the latter Scheme, the reimbursement was to be limited to 80% of the annual amount mentioned in Scheme 'A' as per entitlement. Through a Circular dated 31.7.2019, the applicability of the Schemes to cases where the husband and wife were employees of AA1 was clarified as follows: 2. In respect of Husband and Wife, working in AAI, the Competent Authority has decided that only one of them shall prefer his/her claim for his/her eligible existing dependent family member(s), including his/her spouse and dependent children, to avail AAI medical facility as per Scheme – A (reimbursement on production of bills) or Scheme -B (reimbursement on undertaking basis). For this purpose, a joint declaration has to be given to the respective HR **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 23 ::** department within 1 month from issuance of this circular as to who among Husband and Wife shall prefer the claim as per Scheme -A or Scheme -B. If declaration is not furnished within the stipulated time, as mentioned above, the benefit shall be availed by all existing eligible dependent members including wife and children according to the status of the husband as per Scheme -A only. 3. The other official, either Husband or Wife, as the case may be, shall be eligible to avail AAI Medical facility for his/her eligible existing dependent members. In such cases, he/she shall be allowed for reimbursement of the medical expense incurred as per Scheme -A on production of requisite bills/prescription so that the duplicity of claim for the eligible dependent members shall be protected. _**Illustration of para 2 and 3.** In case Husband takes Scheme -A or B as per the provision mentioned in para 2 above then he along with his eligible existing dependent members, wife and children are covered for availing facility as per AAI Medical facility for her dependent family members as per Scheme A only provided that there should not be any duplicity of dependent(s). Meaning if husband has made their eligible children as dependent then wife can't make children as dependent but can make her other eligible dependent family member as her dependent for the purpose of availing medical facility of AAI._ 4. The above mentioned provisions are applicable to Husband & Wife working in AAI with effect from 01.04.2019 i.e. from the date of implementation of revised Medical Policy. 5. All other terms and conditions, except to the extent modified, above shall remain same.” It was this clarification together with recovery action initiated against those who had claimed allowances in relation to both husband and wife employees that was impugned in the writ petitions aforementioned. **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 24 ::** 3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found that Ext.P11 Circular had basically re-introduced the anomaly that had been noticed and rectified by the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation, which had attained finality through the dismissal of the SLP preferred by AAI. The AAI was therefore directed to disburse the medical allowance and permit the parties to exercise either of the two Schemes 'A' or 'B' under the revised medical policy in relation to both husband and wife employed as executives in AAI, even if one spouse had retired from the service of AAI. 4. In the appeals before us, the contention of the appellant AAI is essentially that the medical allowance granted to an employee is merely a reimbursement offered by the employer based on a policy decision to do so, and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Being in the nature of a compassionate reimbursement, it is argued that the employer has absolute discretion to decide the manner in which the reimbursement has to be granted. With specific reference to the Scheme that was dealt with in Ext.P11 Circular, it is pointed out that the revised policy of the AAI was to operate in partial modification of the earlier policy, and under the revised policy, there were two **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 25 ::** Schemes namely, Scheme 'A' and Scheme 'B' for OPD medical treatment. Under Scheme 'A', the employees were entitled to medical reimbursement on submission of actual bills subject to an annual ceiling, and under Scheme 'B', the medical reimbursement was on self certification basis limited to 80% of the annual ceiling amount mentioned in Scheme 'A'. The 2003 Regulations which continues to govern the Scheme had made it abundantly clear that where the husband and wife are both employed with the Authority, they have to be treated as one unit for the purposes of medical reimbursement, and it was accordingly that Ext.P11 Circular clarified that in cases of husband and wife working with the Authority, only one of them shall prefer the claim for the benefit of medical facility as per Scheme 'A' or Scheme 'B' on behalf of the eligible existing dependent family members including his/her spouse and dependent children. It was in this connection that a joint declaration was also insisted upon indicating as to who among the husband and wife would prefer the claim as per the Schemes available. It is further contended that in the previous rounds of litigation, this Court had interfered with the policy of AAI only for the reason that the then Scheme was not sufficient to cater to the requirements of both husband and wife when they were both employed under the AAI. It was in that context that this Court **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 26 ::** found that upon holy matrimony, the employees could not be put to serious disadvantage. It is pointed out that pursuant to the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation, the AAI came out with the revised Scheme which provided for enhanced ceiling limits and reimbursement for treating chronic diseases over and above that limit. The revised policy also provides for expenses for high cost medical tests to be reimbursed over and above the ceiling limit as also for reimbursement of home-based treatment expenses for serious medial conditions. The contention therefore is essentially that in view of the new Scheme which is significantly different from the Scheme that prevailed earlier, the judgments rendered in the earlier round of litigation against the AAI can have no application to the facts in the instant cases which relate to claims made under the revised policy. The appellant also placed reliance on the decisions reported in **Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Another v. Ajit Kumar Kar and Others - [(2008) 11 SCC 591), State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dashh - [(2005) 13 SCC 495]** and **State of Punjab and Others v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others - [(1998) 4 SCC 117]** to contend that the benefit of medical reimbursement is one that is based on a policy decision taken by the AAI, and unless there is an infringement of fundamental rights that is demonstrated before the Court, the Courts **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 27 ::** would not ordinarily interfere with the said policy decision or substitute its opinion for that of the Executive. The stipulations under the Revised policy are stated to have been made to avoid undue enrichment to the employees, and for equitable distribution of public money, and hence, in the absence of anything to demonstrate any inherent flow in the Scheme, this Court ought not to interfere with the same. 5. Per contra, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners is essentially that this Court having found the clause in the 2003 Regulations that treated the husband and wife who were employees in the AAI as one unit for the purposes of claiming medical reimbursement to be violative of the equality clause and detrimental to the interests of the spouse especially in his/her capacity as an employee of the AAI, it was not open to the appellant to reintroduce such a condition in the revised policy. Particular emphasis is laid on the fact that in the SLP preferred against the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the Supreme Court had concurred with the findings of the Division Bench while dismissing the SLP. It is stated that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in **Khoday Distilleries v. Sri. Mahadeshwara** **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 28 ::** **Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. - [(2019) 4 SCC 376],** the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court should be seen as affirming the view taken by the High Court in the earlier round of litigation as regards the legality of the provisions in the 2003 Regulations that sought to treat the husband and wife, who were employees in the AAI, as one unit for the purposes of medical reimbursement claims. 6. We have heard Sri.S.Manu, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the appellant AAI and Smt.Celine Joseph and Sri.P.K. Ravisankar, the learned counsel appearing the respondents/writ petitioners in these Writ Appeals. On a consideration of the rival submissions and the pleadings before us, we are of the view that for the reasons that are to follow, these Writ Appeals must necessarily fail. As has already been noticed in the course of the narration of facts in these cases, the provisions of the 2003 Regulations clearly contemplate that in cases where the husband and wife are both employed in the AAI, they are to be treated as a single unit for the purposes of preferring claims for medical reimbursement in terms of the 2003 Regulations. It was pursuant to a finding that separate claims were being made by the husband and wife, **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 29 ::** who were both employees in the AAI, that steps had been initiated by the latter for stopping such practice and recovering the excess amounts paid to the employees concerned. On that occasion, when the employees had approached this Court through writ petitions, while the learned Single Judge rejected their writ petitions on the finding that in view of the specific clause in the 2003 Regulations, the husband and wife, who were both employees in the AAI, could not separately claim medical allowances for themselves and their dependent family members, the said judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench on the finding that a provision that had the effect of differentiating between two employees of the AAI solely on account of the relationship of matrimony, could not be legally sustained. The judgment of the Division Bench was later affirmed through the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court. In this connection, we might observe that while there may be instances where the mere dismissal of an SLP would not tantamount to affirmation of the judgment of the High Court by the Supreme Court, the decision in **Khoday Distilleries (supra)** fortifies our finding that on the facts of the instant case, and in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP preferred by the AAI in the earlier round of litigation, this would be a case where the order of the Supreme Court in **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 30 ::** the SLP can be seen as affirming the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Although in the earlier round of litigation, the Division Bench had not made the observations regarding the differential treatment meted out to employees who were related to each other as husband and wife as against other individual employees of AAI, in the context of a challenge to the Regulations which provided that for the purposes of medical reimbursement, the husband and wife would be treated as a single unit, we have to treat the findings of the Division Bench as effectively setting aside or reading down the said Regulations by entertaining a challenge that was collateral in nature. In other words, the specific findings of the Division Bench of this Court, and the consequent declaration of the law in this regard, has to be seen as having the effect of striking down the said Regulations as unconstitutional to the extent indicated above. If that be so, then, we cannot find fault with the judgment of the learned Single Judge that is impugned before us in these writ appeals, to the extent it holds that the appellant herein could not have imposed a similar condition in Ext.P11 Circular while considering the entitlement of the husband and wife who were both employees in the AAI, separately, for the benefits of the revised medical reimbursement policy that was introduced through the Circular dated 31.7.2019. We accordingly see no reason to interfere **W.A.Nos.1827, 1936 & 1950/2022 :: 31 ::** with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and for the reasons already stated in the said judgment, as supplemented by the reasons in this judgment, the Writ Appeals fail, and are accordingly dismissed. **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **Sd/MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** **prp/**