Bombay High Court
LT. COLONEL RAJENDRA J (RETIRED)versusUNION OF INDIA (THROUGH SECRETARY) , MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the contract was not extended and the termination was not wrongful.
Summary
Lt. Colonel Rajendra J, a retired commercial helicopter pilot, filed a writ petition challenging the non‑renewal of his Commercial Helicopter Pilot Licence and alleging wrongful termination from his post as Flight Operations Inspector with the DGCA. He claimed his contract, which was set to expire on 30 June 2020, was automatically extended by a DGCA document proposing a three‑month extension for existing FOIs. The Court examined the contract terms and the DGCA’s extension proposal, finding that the document did not constitute a valid extension and no specific extension letter was issued to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner’s termination was not wrongful and dismissed the claim for damages and status‑quo relief. The licence‑renewal issue was left untouched as it is pending before the appellate authority under Rule 3B of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, with a direction for expedited hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s contract as Flight Operations Inspector was automatically extended beyond 30 June 2020.
- Whether the termination of the petitioner’s employment was wrongful.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to damages or status‑quo relief in view of the alleged wrongful termination.
- Whether the non‑renewal of the Commercial Helicopter Pilot Licence requires judicial intervention (deferred).
Legislation cited
- Aircraft Rules, 1937 — s. Rule 3B
Subjects
- wrongful termination
- contract extension
- DGCA
- Flight Operations Inspector
- Commercial Helicopter Pilot Licence
- Aircraft Rules 1937
- Rule 3B
- damages
- status quo relief
Judgment
sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TRUSHA
TUSHAR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MOHITE
Digitally signed by
TRUSHA TUSHAR
MOHITE
Date: 2026.04.24
15:28:07 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2021
Lt. Colonel Rajendra J (retired) .. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India (thr. Secretary),
Ministry of Civil Aviation & Ors. .. Respondents
Adv. Angsuman Nibas Chandra Ojha for the Petitioner.
Adv. Anusha Pravin Amin for Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: APRIL 23, 2026
P. C.
1. The above Writ Petition raises basically two issues. The first
issue is the non-renewal of the Petitioner’s Commercial Helicopter Pilot
License (CHPL). The second issue is the alleged wrongful termination from
his employment with the DGCA as the Flight Operations Inspector
(Helicopter). A claim for damages is also made in the above Writ Petition.
2. As far as the non-renewal of the license is concerned, the
Petitioner has already availed of the appellate remedy available to him under
Rule 3B of the Aircraft Rules 1937. That Appeal is pending. Hence, we are not
Page 1 of 5
APRIL 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc
commenting on the issue of non-renewal of the license of the Petitioner’s
CHPL. The only issue that we have to now decide is whether the Petitioner
was wrongly terminated by the DGCA as contended by the Petitioner.
3. After going through the papers and proceedings, we are unable
to agree with the submissions of the Petitioner that he has been wrongly
terminated by the DGCA. From the record, we find that the Petitioner was
appointed as a Flight Operations Inspector (“FOI”) pursuant to a contract
which the Petitioner himself has brought on record at Exhibit AR-9 (page 324
of the paper book). This contract itself states that the tenure of the contract
will be for a period upto 30 th June, 2020, or till the incumbent attains the age
of 70 years, or till the post is filled up on the regular basis or until further
orders, whichever is earlier. It is an admitted fact that the DGCA, by its letter
dated 30th June, 2020, relieved the Petitioner (and others) of his duties, with
effect from 30th June, 2020 as the contract period was completed. It is the
Petitioner’s contention that this contract stood automatically extended by
virtue of a document styled as “Extension of the contract of existing FOIs in
various categories for a period of three months beyond 30 th June, 2020.”
This document can be found at page 333 of the paper book. On going through
the aforesaid so called extension, we do not find that this document in any
way extends the contract of the Petitioner beyond 30 th June, 2020. When one
Page 2 of 5
APRIL 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc
reads this document, what becomes clear is that the DGCA, to continually fill
up the posts on contract basis from 1st July, 2020, requested the Department
of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to convey their in principle approval to
the said proposal. While the Cabinet approval was awaited, in view of the
functional requirements of the DGCA to engage FOIs, a proposal was
submitted to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) for obtaining approval of
the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and the Department of
Expenditure (DoE) for extension of the contract period of the existing FOIs in
various categories on the existing emoluments and terms and conditions for a
period of three months from 1 st July, 2020 to 30th September, 2020. This
proposal was accorded approval by the Department of Personnel and
Training (DoPT) and the Department of Expenditure (DoE), and which was
conveyed to the DGCA by the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA). This does
not, in our humble opinion, extend the contract of the Petitioner as sought to
be contended before us. There is no extension letter produced before us by
the Petitioner informing him that his tenure has been extended pursuant to
the approval granted to the DGCA by the Department of Personnel and
Training (DoPT) and the Department of Expenditure (DoE). When one reads
this document, it is clear that there are certain conditions that are to be
fulfilled before the tenure of the FOIs is extended.
Page 3 of 5
APRIL 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc
4. In fact, paragraph 12 of this document, categorically records that
it is proposed to consider extension of the tenure of 34 existing FOIs on the
existing emoluments being drawn by them and existing terms and conditions,
and the requirement of medical fitness as required for them in the respective
posts for a period of three months with effect from 1 st July, 2020 to 30th
September, 2020 or until further orders, whichever is earlier. This also
fortifies our view that the document relied upon by the Petitioner, to contend
that the contract of the Petitioner is duly extended, holds no merit. In these
circumstances, this document can never be termed as an automatic
extension, especially considering it is not addressed to any FOIs.
5. Considering these facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the
view that the Petitioner cannot contend that his contract was extended. Once
this is our finding, there is no question of awarding any damages as sought
for in prayer clause (f) of the Petition. There is also no question therefore of
granting any relief of status quo on the Petitioner’s present job application in
response to the Respondent’s Recruitment Circular dated 29 th May, 2021.
6. In view of the above discussion, we pass the following order :
a) As far as the issue regarding the renewal of the Petitioner’s
Commercial Helicopter Pilot’s License is concerned, we have not opined
Page 4 of 5
APRIL 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
sr.11-wp-2408-2021.doc
on the merits of the same since that issue is already pending before the
Appellate Authority under Rule 3B of the Aircraft Rules 1937. That
Appeal shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.
b) Since that Appeal is pending quite for some time, we would
request the Appellate Authority to hear the Appeal of the Petitioner as
expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of four months
from the date of this Order being communicated to the Appellate
Authority.
c) As far as the issue regarding the alleged wrongful termination of
the Petitioner is concerned, the Writ Petition is dismissed. In the facts of
the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
Page 5 of 5
APRIL 23, 2026
Mansi shelke
Checking your session…