New Delhi, Sep 14 (IANS) A pilot has submitted in Delhi High Court that public interest may be protected by upholding and applying the law as it stands, and not by violating the same.
In a rejoinder filed in the court in his case versus Air India, Capt K. Sai Sashanka said, “It is further submitted that public interest may be protected by upholding and applying the law as it stands, and not by violating the same, which is what the respondent seems to be seeking.”
The petition challenges Air India’s order whereby the petitioner’s resignation dated January 22, 2020 was “accepted” even though the same had already been withdrawn on March 16, 2020.
“The respondent has made vague statements, without any basis whatsoever, regarding ‘alternate employment’ and pilots ‘trying their luck with Air India’,” the rejoinder said.
Sashanka said Air India has not defined what public interest will be harmed in case the petitioner’s withdrawal request is dealt with in accordance with the well-established law.
“The respondent has accepted the law regarding withdrawal of resignation, i.e., the same can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective,” the rejoinder said.
It added that Air India has not substantiated how a non-existent resignation (on account of it having been withdrawn) could have been “accepted” by the respondent.
In addition, the company has not denied the applicability of the operating manual, which has been issued in terms of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
“The respondent has not at all addressed the issue of non-compliance with the operating manual, and why the provisions thereof should be violated,” the rejoinder added.
It said that while Air India has claimed that the notice period would start in accordance with the stipulations contained in the relevant regulations, it has not addressed the specific stipulations contained in the operating manual.
“It appears the respondent has filed a common counter-affidavit in matters pending before this court, and adopted very general pleas, without going into the unique details of each case. It is submitted that the respondent had displayed a similar non-application of mind while issuing the impugned order,” Sashanka said in the rejoinder.