WRIT PETITION 3318/2023

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+LPA 929/2013MAHENDER KUMAR ARYA & ORS.....Appellants

Through:None.

versus

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Archit Mishra,Advs. with Mr. Yatinder Choudhary,LawOfficer/AAI,Mr.JayeshBhargawa,JE(Law),AAI.(M-[REDACTED])

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAO R R%16.05.20251.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.Review Petition 67/2016

2.This review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgmentdated 18[th]November, 2015. Vide the said judgment, Coordinate Bench ofthis Court has held has under:

“12. As regards LPA No.929/2013 in view of thedecision in favour of the appellants herein by thelearned Single Judge the appellants claim that they areentitled to monetary emoluments and seniority from thesame date as those who have already been recruited andthey should not be discriminated. It is well-settled thatthe emoluments and seniority for direct recruit can begranted only from the date of his joining the service andnot from the date when people senior to him in the meritlist have joined. Indubitably, the candidates alreadyappointed were higher in the merit list so senior to theappellants. Thus the case of the appellants is akin to thatofwaitlistedcandidateswhoareappointedsubsequently and cannot claim appointment from back

This is digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2025 at 14:55:15

date. The Supreme Court in the decision reported as JT1994 (3) SC 559 Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’Association Vs. The State of Gujarat & Ors. held that acandidate from the wait list appointed subsequentlycannot claim appointment from back date and evenotherwise appointment of candidate operates from thedate he is appointed and not from the date when thecandidates from the select list are appointed. Sameprinciple applies even amongst the inter-se appointeesfrom the waiting list. Thus there is no error in theimpugned judgment directing that all the serviceentitlements whether they be monetary emoluments orseniority will be taken from the date of their joining withthe respondent, if the writ petitioners get employmentwith the AAI in terms of the judgment.”

3.Thus, the monetary emoluments, all services entitlements, seniority,etc. are to be counted from the date of joining with the Respondent in termsof the above judgment.

4.In the present petition, the main prayer is that the seniority of thePetitioners ought to be fixed as per the merit position along with their batchmates. Further, it is prayed that all further consequential benefits be alsoprovided to the Petitioners.

5.This review petition had been adjourned sine die in view of thependency of SLP (Civil) No.4826-27/2016. The said order reads as under:

This review petition had been adjourned sine die in view of the

“R.P.No.67/2016

1.Limited review impacting seniority alone, as aconsequence to the relief granted to the appellants issought.

2. But we are informed that the decision, limited reviewwhereof is prayed for, has been stayed by the SupremeCourt in SLP (C) No.4826-27/2016. Therefore, asprayed by learned counsel for the parties hearing in thereview petition is adjourned sine die with liberty grantedwhereof is prayed for, has been stayed by the SupremeCourt in SLP (C) No.4826-27/2016. Therefore, asprayed by learned counsel for the parties hearing in thereview petition is adjourned sine die with liberty granted

This is digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2025 at 14:55:15

to move an application for revival depending upon thedecision in the Petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal,for should the decision be overruled nothing will remainto be adjudicated.”

6.The Court is now informed that the SLP (C) No. 4826-27/2016 hadbeen incorrectly recorded in the said order. The order dated 18[th]November,2015 passed in the LPA 929/2013 was challenged before the Supreme Courtin SLP(C) 8072-8073/2016 titled Airports Authority of India v. Vikas Singh& Ors. The said SLP was dismissed vide order dated 2nd March, 2022 whichreads as under:

“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugnedorder. The Special Leave Petitions are accordinglydismissed.

Pendingapplication,ifany,alsostandsdisposed of.”

7.In addition, it is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Airport Authorityof India that the Petitioners have also filed separate writ petitions being W.P.

(C) 3318/2023 titled Mahendra Kumar Arya and Ors. v. Airports Authorityof India and Anr. seeking the same prayer as has been sought in the reviewwhich is now pending before the Single Judge.

8.In view of the above, the review petition is no longer tenable and thesame is accordingly dismissed.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

MAY 16, 2025

Rahul/Msh.

This is digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/05/2025 at 14:55:15