w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sangeetha Sharma v/s The Director General of Civil Aviation & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- A K AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U62200MH2007PTC176382

Company & Directors' Information:- S V V AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U62200KA2008PTC046264

Company & Directors' Information:- S R C AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC071383

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND C AVIATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013KA2006PTC039002

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040DL2012PTC234038

Company & Directors' Information:- AVIATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63033DL1996PTC077267

Company & Directors' Information:- S K AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1999PTC089940

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND M AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35999KA2021PTC143523

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35300KA2007PTC043583

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. INDIA AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U62100DL2006PTC153980

Company & Directors' Information:- J D M AVIATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040PB2013PTC038242

Company & Directors' Information:- J T AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U62200DL2011PTC216080

    Writ Petition No. 30308 of 2013 & and M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 of 2013

    Decided On, 10 January 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH

    For the Petitioner: V. Prakash, Senior Counsel, for Shubharanjani Ananth, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, N.G.R. Prasad, for Air India, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Writ petition No.31074 of 2013 has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of certiorarifiled mandamus to call for the records of the impugned circular dated 18.9.2013 bearing reference No.MAA/IFS/CC/ADMN./ 092 issued by the fourth respondent under the directions of the third respondent and the consequent letter dated 23.10.2013 bearing ref No.MAA/IFS/CC/ADMIN/1151 issued by the sixth defendant, quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue to treat the petitioner as qualified Chief Cabin Crew incharge on the strength of the relevant certification in her SEP Book.)

1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging impugned circular dated 18.9.2013 issued by the fourth respondent under the directions of the third respondent and the consequent letter dated 23.10.2013 issued by the sixth respondent, and consequently directing respondents 1 and 2 to continue to treat her as qualified Chief Cabin Crew Incharge on the strength of the relevant certification in her SEP Book.

2. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is set out hereunder:-

(a) The petitioner joined Air India as an Air Hostess on 20.11.1989. Her employee number is 505447. She has put in 21 years of service and she is having flight experience of over 10,000 hours. She has worked as a Chief Cabin Crew for over 15 years and has served on the Domestic Sector and on the International Sector also.

(b) In the year 2010, for the first time, the first respondent exercising his power under Sections 4 and 5A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rules 29C and 133A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 issued Civil Aviation Requirement (CAR). In this connection, a "Safety & Emergency Procedure (SEP)" booklet was issued by the second respondent to all Cabin Crew of Air India. The fifth respondent is although an employee of Air India Limited, he was authorised as an SEP Instructor by the second respondent, to make entries under the head "Type of Training" in terms of training imparted such as for Initial Training / Type Training / Conversion Training / Recurrent Training / Differences Training / Refresher Training / Cabin Crew Incharge Training / Corrective Training, etc.

(c) The petitioner was also issued SEP Book on completion of Annual Refresher Training that she had undergone between 18.5.2010 and 21.5.2010. As part of Refresher Training between 18.5.2010 and 21.5.2010, the petitioner was also imparted an one day training required for flying as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge which was introduced in the CAR series with effect from 15.3.2010. Since the petitioner was also imparted one day training required for flying as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge, in her SEP Book, a tick was made in the box pertaining to Chief Cabin Crew Incharge training as part of the CAR. On completion of training, the petitioner was functioning as Chief Cabin Crew Incharge.

(d) While so, the petitioner, at her request, had proceeded on a two-year leave with effect from 1.7.2010 under leave without pay (LWP) scheme formulated by the company. After expiry of leave, the petitioner reported duty on 2.7.2012. At the time of resuming duty, her SEP booklet was examined by the respondent Airline and after due application of mind including taking due note of the tick in the SEP book pertaining to the box meant for Cabin Crew Incharge difference training, the petitioner was advised to undergo ab-initio training. The respondent Airline has not chosen to send her for Cabin Crew Incharge Differences Training to regularise the Cabin Crew Incharge training, which the petitioner had already undergone in May, 2010 itself. Hence, the petitioner had undergone ab-iintio training after resuming duty for a period of 9 weeks between 13.5.2013 and 10.7.2013. After the ab-initio training between 1.8.2013 and 24.9.2013, the petitioner flew as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge for over 92 hours.

(e) While so, the fourth respondent issued the impugned circular dated 18.9.2013 stating that the petitioner has supposedly not undergone the Cabin Crew Incharge Differences Training. Aggrieved by the said incorrect circular, the petitioner, by e-mail dated 28.9.2013, requested the reason for the said impugned circular and also requested to permit her to continue to fly as Chief Cabin Crew Incharge. However, the fourth respondent, who is the competent officer and the author of the impugned circular, failed to respond. Therefore, by e-mail dated 5.10.2013, the petitioner once again wrote a letter to respondents 4 and 6 stating that the letter displayed on the Board is not binding on her. However, the petitioner shall conform to the same strictly without prejudice to her rights till her grievance is resolved.

(f) The impugned circular was displayed on the Notice Board only on 24.9.2013. Immediately on 26.9.2013, the petitioner met the sixth respondent and made an oral representation explaining that she is having over 10,000 hours of flying experience and she was issued an SEP book as early as May, 2010 and that she had been imparted Cabin Crew Incharge Training for one day as part of the Refresher Training conducted in May, 2010 and that only upon such completion of the said training, tick was made in the relevant box pertaining to the Chief Cabin Crew Incharge Training in her SEP book. Upon resuming from the leave without pay and after completion of her ab-initio training, she had flown as chief Cabin Crew Incharge for over 92 hours. Therefore, now disqualifying her as Chief Cabin Crew Incharge is incorrect, unfair and discriminatory. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition.

3. Respondents 2 to 7 have filed counter affidavit, wherein the following facts have been set out:-

(a) The Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), which is the regulatory authority for safety aspects connected with Civil Aviation in India, which is functioning under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, periodically lays down rules regarding various aspects of flight safety called Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR). The Civil Aviation Requirements regarding Cabin Crew Training were issued by the DGCA vide Section 7 – Training and Licensing – Series 'M' part I, Issue II, under Ref.No.AV.15011/3/2008-AS dated 15.3.2010. Based on the Civil Aviation Requirements, the respondent Airlines has also issued the "Safety and Emergency Procedures (SEP) Training Manual".

(b) Under proviso 3.3 of Civil Aviation Requirements dated 15.3.2010, an operator (Airline) shall nominate a Cabin Crew Incharge, who is entrusted with the responsibility of leading the team of Cabin Crew on board the aircraft and whom shall be responsible to the commander of the aircraft for the conduct and coordination of normal and emergency procedures as specified in the training / operation manual. The minimum requirements / qualifications for Cabin Crew Incharge were prescribed in proviso 4.2, wherein any Cabin Crew should have a total flying experience of four years including one year on the aircraft type and demonstrate good leadership qualities to be designated as Cabin Crew Incharge after successful completion of the training programme in accordance with para 7.0 and the assessment prescribed in para 9.0. The minimum duration of the training was prescribed as 05 programmed days / 30 hours.

(c) Though the petitioner had undergone training for a period of five years, she proceeded on a two-year leave with effect from 1.7.2010 under the leave without pay scheme formulated by the airlines. Therefore, the petitioner did not undergo the Cabin Crew Difference Training. Due to shortage of Cabin Crew, the respondent airlines took a decision to curtail the leave without pay sanctioned to Cabin Crew including the petitioner and wrote a letter dated 2.11.2010 to the petitioner advising her to report back for duties on or before 22.11.2010. Since there was no response, once again a letter dated 25.11.2010 was sent to the petitioner advising her to report for duties. However, the petitioner, by her letter dated 6.12.2010, informed that she had joined a company viz., Adam and Coal Resources Private Limited on contract basis for a period of 18 months and so she would be able to report back for duty only after she completed the contract with that company. Citing this reason, the petitioner did not report back for duty. When her two years leave was about to expire, the petitioner sent a letter dated 7.6.2012 requesting for extension of leave without pay on medical grounds. But, she was informed by letter dated 22.6.2012 that the competent authority had not accepted her request and she was required to report back for duty on or before 2.7.2012 on expiry of leave. Accordingly, on 2.7.2012, the petitioner reported duty.

(d) Under the company's SEP Training Manual, a new entrant or a cabin crew absent from active flying duties for more than consecutive 18 months, has to undergo the Initial Training Course (ab-initio) as part of re-qualification program. The ab-initio training is given to such long absentee cabin crew keeping in view the flight safety aspect, as they would have lost touch with the knowledge / skills acquired by them earlier due to efflux of time. Therefore, they would not be in a position to perform the functions of Cabin Crew Incharge as before, which is very important from the angle of safety. Accordingly, after resuming duty, the petitioner had undergone the ab-initio training from 13.5.2013 to 12.7.2013.

(e) After completing the initial training, the petitioner resumed her flying duties with effect from 2.7.2013. Though the petitioner was functioning as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge before proceeding on leave without pay, she was not authorised to do so after she resumed flying duties on expiry of the leave without pay as she had not undergone the Cabin Crew Incharge Training as per the revised Civil Aviation Requirements. However, the petitioner on her own, functioned as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge on a few flights citing the tick mark against the Cabin Crew column on the front page of her SEP booklet, even though she has not undergone the Cabin Crew Incharge Training.

(f) Upon noticing the fact that the petitioner had undergone the ab-initio training as imparted to a cabin crew newly recruited and after completing the training, she had resumed flying only from July, 2013 and that she has not completed 1000 hours and one year since then, the training was not imparted to her. Considering the safety aspect, the proviso 4.2 of Civil Aviation Requirements, Section 7 Series M Part I was revised by the DGCA with effect from 15.10.2012 to make it more stringent, whereby any cabin crew, who has a minimum experience of one year as a cabin crew with a total flying experience of 1000 hours, attained the age of 21 years and demonstrates good leadership qualities shall be designated as Cabin Crew Incharge. The petitioner was therefore informed by the Officer looking after administration functions in the Inflight services Department that she has to undergo Cabin Crew Incharge Training prior to functioning as chief Cabin Crew Incharge. A circular dated 18.9.2013 was also issued to this effect by the fourth respondent that the petitioner and five other members of the cabin crew have not undergone the Cabin Crew Incharge Differences Training. However, the petitioner sent an e-mail dated 28.9.2013 stating that she had undergone her Cabin Crew Incharge Training and her SEP book also had the endorsement to that effect. The present SEP books were issued in the year 2011 and Cabin Crew Incharge book was ticked for all cabin crew flying as Cabin Crew Incharge before the new Civil Aviation Requirements. During 2011-2012, as per the instructions, the same was regularised by conducting an one day Cabin Crew Incharge Differences Training and an endorsement was made for successful cabin crew in their SEP books. As and when the respective cabin crew underwent the Cabin Crew Incharge Training, the trainer makes the necessary endorsement in the SEP booklet mentioning the date of training and the period of validity. The cabin crew who were on leave like the petitioner had not undergone the said training and that is why there is no endorsement inside the petitioner's SEP book. Roastering a cabin crew as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge is only at the requirement of the company and the petitioner cannot claim it as a matter of right. If more than one cabin crew with Cabin Crew Incharge endorsement is flying in an aircraft, the senior most Cabin Crew in the aircraft having Cabin Crew Incharge endorsement, functions as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge. It is only a responsibility and no extra salary or allowance is paid to a Cabin Crew member whenever they are put incharge of the Cabin Crew during flying. The Incharge Cabin Crew is paid the same salary and allowance for the post they are holding. Though for the service benefits, the petitioner's past service is counted, for flying, she should be considered as a fresher since she went on two years leave and that is the reason ab-initio training was imparted to her. She is required to complete total flying experience of 1000 hours and thereafter only, she could be considered for Chief Cabin Crew Incharge. Thus, the counter affidavit of respondents 2 to 7 sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

4. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the affidavit in support of the writ petition.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined Air India as an Air Hostess on 20.11.1989. She has a flying experience of over 10,000 hours. Before joining the post of Air Hostess, the petitioner has also completed Initial Training Course (ab-initio training). The Cabin Crew, who has a minimum of one year experience as a Cabin Crew with a total flying experience of 1000 hours and attained the age of 21 years and demonstrates good leadership quality shall be designated as Cabin Crew Incharge. It is only a responsibility and no extra salary or allowance is paid to the Cabin Crew Incharge. While so, during the year 2010, for the first time, the first respondent issued Civil Aviation Requirements (herein after referred to as CAR). As per CAR, a Safety and Emergency Procedures (SEP) booklet was issued by the second respondent to all the Cabin Crew of Air India and the petitioner was also issued with the SEP book. The fifth respondent was authorised as an SEP Instructor, who is also authorised to make entries in the said SEP book with regard to the various training undergone by the Cabin Crew. In the CAR issued in March, 2010, for the first time, under clause 4.2 certain eligibility criteria was fixed for Cabin Crew Incharge, which are as follows:-

Any Cabin Crew, who has a minimum of one year experience as a Cabin Crew withA total flying experience of 1000 hours,Attained an age of 21 years andDemonstrates good leadership qualityshall be designated as Cabin Crew Incharge after successful completion of the training programme detailed to such CAR series. The topics covered under the training programme for a Cabin Crew Incharge are detailed in clause-7 of the said series 'M' of the CAR. These broadly include the following:-

Pre-flight briefingCooperation within the CrewReview of Operator's requirement and Legal RequirementsHuman factors & Crew Resource managementExtent of Incident ReportingFlight and duty time limitations and rest requirementsSituation Management Training, Disruptive Passenger Managerment, etc.In the CAR issued in the year 2013, along with regular training, an one day Cabin Crew Incharge Differences Training was also made as a requirement for flying as a Cabin Crew Incharge. The petitioner had undergone the said training from 18.5.2010 to 21.5.2010 including one day training required for flying as Cabin Crew Incharge. On completion of the said training, in her SEP book, a tick had been made in the box pertaining to the training for Cabin Crew Incharge as part of the CAR. After completion of the training, she flew as a Cabin Crew Incharge. Thereafter, the petitioner at her request, proceeded on a two-year leave with effect from 1.7.2010 under leave without pay scheme. She resumed duty on 12.5.2012. On resuming duty, she had undergone the ab-initio training from 1.8.2013 to 24.9.2013. Thereafter, she flew as a Cabin Crew Incharge for over 92 hours. At this juncture, the impugned circular dated 18.9.2013 was issued by the first respondent stating that the petitioner has supposedly not undergone the Cabin Crew Differences Training. Hence, the impugned circular is liable to be set aside.

6. Further, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per clause 4.2 of CAR, the eligibility criteria for a Chief Cabin Crew is that the Cabin Crew must have minimum of one year experience as a Cabin Crew with a total flying experience of 1000 hours. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she is having flying experience of more than 10,000 hours and she has put in 21 years of service. After the issuance of CAR regulations, she had also undergone one day training to fly as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge in the year 2010. Thereafter, from May 2010, she flew as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge till June 2010. On 2.7.2010, she went on leave under leave without pay scheme for a period of two years. When she resumed duty, as per the rules, she underwent ab-initio training. Thereafter, she flew as Chief Cabin Crew Incharge for over 92 hours. At this juncture, the impugned circular was issued stating that the petitioner had not undergone Cabin Crew Incharge Differences Training after resuming duty. With regard to this, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after resuming duty, the petitioner had undergone ab-initio training for 9 weeks including one day Cabin Crew Differences Training. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the petitioner has not undergone the one day training. In fact, the petitioner was allowed to fly as Chief Cabin Crew Incharge for 92 hours on completion of ab-initio training. Even if the respondents feel that a further training is necessary for the petitioner, she is ready to undergo Cabin Crew Differences Training once again. Though the petitioner is ready to undergo Cabin Crew Differences Training once again, the respondents are not allowing the petitioner to comply with Cabin Crew Incharge Training stating that there was a break in service for two years and hence, she should have the flying experience of another 1000 hours from the date of resuming duty. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no such requirement is necessary as per the regulations in CAR. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the tick made in the relevant box of the SEP book of the petitioner with regard to the Chief Cabin Crew Incharge Training would show that the petitioner had already undergone Cabin Crew Differences Training in the year 2010 itself. That part, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by inviting the attention of the Court to the case of one Aparna Ray, a Cabin Crew from Mumbai, who had gone on two years leave under the leave without pay scheme, submitted that when the said Aparna Ray resumed duty, she had undergone ab-initio training along with the petitioner and the third respondent, by considering the tick made in the column pertaining to Cabin Crew Training in her SEP book, has permitted her to fly as Cabin Crew Incharge. Similarly, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court to the case of one Premila Devi, submitted that the said Premila Devi had remained on ground in the catering department for nearly seven years from 2004 to 2011. But, in the year 2011, she was called upon to undertake flying duties. Therefore, she had undergone the ab-initio training along with one day Cabin Crew Incharge Training. That training was accepted by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner made a request to the third respondent that when an one day Cabin Crew Incharge Training undergone by two other Air hostess was accepted by the respondents after they resumed duty as Air Hostess with a break in service, the petitioner who had undergone the same one day Cabin Crew Incharge Training should not be treated as violative of the CAR. Even if one day training is necessary, once again, the petitioner is ready to undergo the said training.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that one day Cabin Crew Differences Training was introduced in the regulations in March 2010. This one day Cabin Crew Differences Training is mandatory to become eligible for Chief Cabin Crew Incharge. As per clause 4.2 of the CAR, a person who has 1000 hours flying experience alone is eligible to have one day Cabin Crew Differences Training. Though the petitioner has joined in the year 1989 and she has a flying experience of more than 10,000 hours, there was a break in service from 1.7.2010 to 30.6.2012. Since she was absent from active flying duties for more than consecutive 18 months, at the time of resuming duty, she had undergone initial training (ab-initio training) and not the one day Cabin Crew Differences Training. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also invited the attention of this Court to clause 6.0 and 12.0 of SEP Training Manual of the respondent Airlines. With regard to the tick made in the box pertaining to Chief Cabin Crew Incharge Training to the petitioner's SEP book, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the said tick was made routinely in the said book. But the fact remains that the petitioner had not undergone Cabin Crew Differences Training. He has further submitted that apart from the tick, necessary endorsement has to be made in the SEP book with regard to the type of training undergone by the Air Hostess. But, in the SEP book of the petitioner, no such endorsement was made by the Nodal Officer and Approved SEP Instructor. Therefore, by taking advantage of the tick made in SEP book, the petitioner cannot claim that she is eligible for Chief Cabin Crew Incharge.

8. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the question that falls for consideration is, whether a fresh flying experience of 1000 hours is necessary to treat a Cabin Crew as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge if the said Cabin Crew returns duty after a break in service for a consecutive period of 18 months.

9. Before dealing with the said question, it would be appropriate to extract clause 4.2 of CAR regulations and the same is extracted hereunder:-

" 4.2. Cabin Crew Incharge:- Any cabin crew who has a minimum of one year as a cabin crew with a total flying experience of 1000 hours, attained the age of 21 years and demonstrates good leadership qualities shall be designated as Cabin Crew Incharge after successful completion of the training programme in accordance with Para 7.0 and the assessment prescribed in Para 9.0 a minimum of 50 hours of flying experience shall be required on new aircraft type before exercising privileges as cabin crew incharge on the new type. For new aircraft type, the pass percentage shall be 90% for cabin crew incharge and line cabin crew."

On a careful reading of the said clause, it could be found that cabin crew must have a total flying experience of 1000 hours. The said clause does not say that if there is a break in service for a consecutive period of 18 months, the cabin crew should go for fresh flying experience of 1000 hours to become eligible for Cabin Crew Incharge. On the other hand, the said provision says that the petitioner should have a total flying experience of 1000 hours. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the words "total flying experience" refer to the whole flying experience of the petitioner. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1971 ALLAHABAD 77 (V 58 C 16) FULL BENCH – Mangala Prasad Jaiswal v. District Magistrate and others, wherein it has been held as follows:-

"17. The meaning of the words 'total number of members' is quite plain. It can hardly be disputed that the words 'total' and 'whole' are synonymous. The dictionary meaning of the word 'whole' is 'total' and vice versa. In fact, the whole members of a Board or a body is a well-known expression and is used to convey the totality of the members provided for a complete constitution of the body. In English statutes also the word 'whole' has been used in the sense of total membership constituting the Board. Sri S.C.Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred us to the English Local Government Act of 1933 and submitted that it correlated the quorum of the local authorities (by section 75 read with parts I to V of the third schedule of the Act providing for the quorum of the meeting of the different local bodies) with the whole number of members of the Board. ..."

From the above judgment, it could be seen that the words 'total' and 'whole' are synonymous. The dictionary meaning of the word 'whole' is 'total' and vice versa. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the total flying hours of 1000 is the experience in whole service of the petitioner in the post of Air Hostess. But, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, as per clause 6.0 of the manual, a crew absent from active flying for more than consecutive 18 months should undergo 10 days initial training. When that being the position, unless the petitioner is having fresh 1000 hours flying experience like new entrant, she will not be eligible to become Chief Cabin Crew Incharge. That apart, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per clause 12.0 of the manual, the Cabin Crew must have total four years experience including one year experience on the aircraft type. Therefore, the petitioner must have fresh four years experience from the date of resuming duty. In this regard, it would be appropriate to extract clauses 6.0 and 12.0 of the SEP training manual and the same is extracted hereunder:-

" 6.0 INITIAL TRAINING:-

The content of the syllabus is drafted to be in concurrence with CAR Section 7, 'Training and Licensing', Series M, and Part I, Issue-2 dated 15th March, 2010.

This course shall be conducted at DGCA approved training centres.

The syllabi for Cabin Attendant Initial Training Course shall be covered in class room lectures as per DGCA approved syllabus by DGCA approved instructors.

The Initial course shall be conducted:

For new entrant and for Crew absent from active flying duties for more than consecutive 18 months (as part of requalification program).

Cabin crew absent from active flying duties for more than consecutive 18 months but with valid other qualifications such as AVSEC, DGR shall undergo 10 days initial training as detailed in table 6.1.0.3."

12.0 CCIC Training Syllabus for five days:-

Any cabin crew who has total 4 years experience including one year experience

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on the aircraft type and demonstrates good leadership qualities shall be designated as cabin crew in-charge after successful completion of the CCIC training as detailed below. 12.1 Cabin Crew Incharge:- Minimum duration of the training shall be 05 programmed days / 30 hours. ... " Even a reading of clauses 6.0 and 12.0, I am of the opinion that nowhere it has been stated that if there is a break in service, the person should have fresh 1000 hours experience or fresh four years experience as Cabin Crew including one year experience on the aircraft type to become eligible for Chief Cabin Crew Incharge. As per clause 6.0, if a crew is absent from active flying duties for more than consecutive 18 months, she has to undergo ten days initial training alone with a valid other qualifications such as AVSEC, DGR. In the instant case, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the relevant documents to show that the petitioner is having the qualifications such as AVSEC and DGR and she has also undergone the ab-initio training between 1.8.2013 and 24.9.2013 and she flew as a Cabin Crew Incharge for over 92 hours after returning duty on 1.7.2013. Therefore, from a reading of the above clauses, I am of the opinion that absolutely no fresh 1000 hours flying experience is necessary for the Air Hostess after resuming duty to become eligible for Cabin Crew Incharge. What was required is only a fresh ab-initio training, which the petitioner had already undergone in this case, along with a valid qualification such as AVSEC and DGR. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner needs another fresh 1000 hours of flying experience after resuming duty from 18 months leave, particularly when the petitioner is already having a flying experience of more than 10,000 hours and when she had already functioned as a Chief Cabin Crew Incharge from March 2010 to June 2010 and again for another 92 hours in the year 2013. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned circular dated 18.9.2013, informing the petitioner that she has supposedly not undergone the Cabin Crew Differences Training, is liable to be quashed. 10. With regard to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring the case of other crew members viz., Aparna Ray and Premila Devi, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to deal with the same since this Court has come to the conclusion that fresh 1000 hours flying experience is not necessary to the Cabin Crew if the said Cabin Crew resumed duty after a leave of 18 months. 11. For all the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned circular of the fourth respondent dated 18.9.2013 and the consequent letter of the sixth respondent dated 23.10.2013 are liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
O R