@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The appellant, who was a member of Indian Administrative Service, was appointed as Managing Director of Indian Airlines, on deputation
basis, with effect from 1.3.1994. The terms and conditions governing the deputation of the appellant were decided vide communication dated
9.11.1994, issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It appears that Air India in the meeting of its Board of Directors held on 30.11.1996 resolved
to allow Post Retirement Passage Facility to its Chairman, Part-Time Chairmen and Managing Director including those appointed from outside or
on deputation. On the said resolution being brought to the notice of Government of India, the matter was examined by the Ministry of Civil
Aviation, which felt that the said resolution of Air India was in violation of instructions issued by the said Ministry vide letter dated 27.4.1992 and
later passages. Therefore, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Air Corporation Act, directed Air
India to adhere to the directions contained in its communication dated 16.12.1994 which inter alia provided that Post Retirement Passage may be
allowed on retirement or on resignation of Managing Director, including those appointed in acting capacity, provided they had been in continuous
employment with the Corporation for a period of three years. It was further directed that the said instructions will also be applicable, mutatis
mutandis, to Indian Airlines also. On receipt of the said communication from the government, Indian Airlines, vide letter dated 21.12.1996, wrote
to the government that as per their understanding of the directions of the government, full time Managing Director, appointed from outside or on
deputation, was eligible for passages on retirement, resignation or demitting office, provided he had been in continuous employment with the
company for three years. It was further conveyed to the government that as per the understanding of Indian Airlines, in case of officers on
deputation, the passages would be admissible on demitting office since resignation does not arise in their cases. Vide letter dated 28.1.1997, the
Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation informed the Indian Airlines that full time Managing Director appointed on deputation basis would
also be liable for free passages, if admissible under the terms and conditions of their appointment, issued by the Competent Authority. It would thus
be seen that as far as Managing Directors appointed on deputation basis were concerned, they were to be entitled for free passages, only if such a
facility was admissible to them under the terms and conditions of their appointment issued by the Competent Authority. Therefore, the next
question which comes up for consideration is as to whether under the terms and conditions of his appointment as Managing Director in Indian
Airlines, the appellant was entitled to free air passages, on demitting office of the Managing Director of the said company. A perusal of the
appointment letter dated 9.11.1994 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism, Department of Civil Aviation,
would show that comprehensive terms and conditions running into as many as 12 pages were issued by the Government, governing the
appointment of the appellant as Managing Director of Indian Airlines, on deputation basis. There was no specific term providing for grant of free
air passages to the appellant. Clause (xvii) of the aforesaid letter dated 9.11.1994 reads as under:
Residuary Matters: In all matters relating to the conditions of service not covered by items (i) to (xvi) above, he will be governed by
Rules/Regulations/Orders applicable to a member of the Indian Administrative Services, serving in connection with the affairs of the Union.
2. It would thus be seen that in respect of all matters which were specifically covered by the letter dated 9.11.1994, issued by Department of Civil
Aviation, the appellant was to be governed by the provisions contained in various rules/regulations/orders applicable to the members of Indian
Administrative Services, serving with the Central Government. Admittedly, there is no rules/regulations/orders applicable to a member of Indian
Administrative Services which entitles him to grant of free air passages. Therefore, it cannot be said that the residual clause extracted above, by
itself entitles the appellant to free air passages in terms of communication dated 28.1.1997 issued by the Government.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the rules/regulations/orders applicable to members of Indian Administrative
Service do not prohibit grant of free air passages to a member of the said service and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to grant of free air
passages in terms of the residual clause of the appointment letter dated 9.11.1994. We, however, cannot accept the contention advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant. The aforesaid residual clause entitles the appellant, in addition to the benefits specifically granted vide letter dated
9.11.1994 only to those facilities which a member of Indian Administrative Services gets as a matter of right under the rules/regulations/orders
applicable to him. There needs to be a specific rule/regulation/order, entitling a member of Indian Administrative Service to free air passages. That,
admittedly, is not the position. The appellant would not be entitled to free air passages merely because there is no prohibition against grant of such
facility to a member of Indian Administrative Service. What was necessary, for entitling the appellant to grant of free air passages was a positive
provision whereby all the members of the Indian Administrative Services get such a benefit irrespective of the place they are posted and the
organization they are serving. In the absence of a positive rule/regulation/order entitling the members of Indian Administrative Services to free air
passages, the appellant would not get such a benefit in terms of residual clause contained in appointment letter dated 9.11.1994.
4. In support of his contention that in the absence of prohibition in the rules/regulations/orders governing members of Indian Administrative
Services, the appellant is entitled to free air passages, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in P.C.
Wadhwa Vs. State of Haryana and others, . We have carefully examined the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the
case before the Supreme Court, services of the appellant, a member of Indian Police Services, allotted to the State of Haryana, were placed at the
disposal of Haryana State Electricity Board, where he was to work as DIG of Police for Vigilance Work. The terms and conditions settled by the
Haryana Government for his deputation did not mention anything about payment of deputation allowance to him. He made a representation to the
Central Government for payment of deputation allowance in accordance with Rule 2(b) of the All India Services (Condition of Service- Residual
Rules), 1960. The representation having been rejected, he filed a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the High Court. Being aggrieved, he
filed an appeal before the Supreme Court by way of a special leave. The Supreme Court noted that he being an officer of Indian Police Services,
the appointment was governed by All India Services Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder and insofar as deputation allowance was
concerned, he was governed by residual rules. The provision of Rule (2) of Residual Rules provided that till Regulations were made by the Central
Government to regulate any matter relating to condition of service, all persons appointed to All India Service, for which there was no provision in
the Rules made or deemed to have been made under All India Services Act, 1951, such matters shall be regulated in case of persons serving in
connection with the affair of a State by the rules, regulations and orders applicable to officers of the State Civil Services, Class I, subject to such
exceptions and modifications as the Central Government may, after consultation with the State Government concerned, by order in writing, make.
Thus, in terms of Rules applicable to the appellant before the Supreme Court, he was entitled to a deputation allowance equivalent to that which
was given to the officers of State Civil Services Class-I. The Supreme Court noted that by virtue of the order issued by Punjab Government, which
also applied to Haryana, the officers of State concerned holding Class-I post would be entitled to deputation allowance. The Court, therefore, held
that the appellant was entitled to deputation allowance in terms of the aforesaid order issued by Punjab Government which also applied to State of
Haryana. It was contended on behalf of State of Haryana that since there was no provision in Rule 6 of IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, or in Rule 9 of
IPS(I) Rules, 1954 regarding payment of deputation allowance, it should be held that any officer belonging to IPS Cadre was debarred from
getting any deputation allowance, since there was an express provision in the said Rules. The contention was rejected by the Apex Court holding
that there was nothing in the Rules prohibiting or barring payment of deputation allowance to officer of IPS Cadre on deputation to any of the
authorities mentioned in the aforesaid Rule and mere absence of provision for payment of deputation allowance could not be interpreted to impose
an absolute bar to the receipt of such allowance. However, the facts of the case before us are altogether different. Unlike in the case before the
Supreme Court, there are no rules/regulations/orders applicable to a member of Indian Administrative Services which entitles him to free air
passages as a matter of right. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not apply to the case before us.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the facility of free air passages was granted to some other members of
Indian Administrative Service, appointed as Managing Director of Indian Airlines, withholding all such facilities to the appellant would be arbitrary
and discriminatory. We, however, cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. The Government of India in its wisdom, while approving
the terms and conditions governing deputation of the appellant as Managing Director of Indian Airlines did not deem it appropriate to provide the
facility of free air passages to him, on his demitting the office of the Managing Director of Indian Airlines. If the terms and conditions stipulated by
the Government were not acceptable to the appellant, nothing prevented him from rejecting the same and declining to proceed on deputation as the
Managing Director of Indian Airline. But, having accepted the aforesaid terms and conditions and having worked with Indian Airlines on those
terms and conditions, he cannot challenge them at a latter date on the ground that certain facilities provided to other persons who served in the
same post, were not provided to him. Once the appellant accepted the terms and conditions stipulated by the Government, he is precluded from
challenging those conditions at a later date. In our opinion, no discrimination or arbitrariness is involved in the government not granting the facility of
free air passages to the appellant on his demitting the office of Managing Director of Indian Airlines, even if it had in the past provided such facilities
to some other person(s), as part of the terms and conditions of their appointment. This is not the case of the appellant that other persons who
served as Managing Director of Indian Airlines were granted the facility of free air passages, after issue of Government of India''s letter dated
28.1.1997, without there being a specific term in their appointment letter for grant of such facilities. No other submission was advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, find no merits in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, without there being any order as to
costs.