Court orders respondents to decide on petitioner's 'no-flying' disability within 90 days, issues writ. Rule partly made absolute.

The court ordered the respondents to make a final decision regarding the petitioner's 'no-flying' disability within 90 days, issuing a writ to this effect. The rule was partly made absolute, with each party bearing its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Actionable cause of the petition.
2. Legality and constitutionality of the 'no flying' order.
3. Validity of the direction under Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act.
4. Right to allocation of work during employment.
5. Claim of privilege over intelligence reports.
6. Delay in decision-making by the government.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Actionable Cause of the Petition:
The petitioner, a pilot, challenged the 'no flying' order, arguing that it imposed a disability affecting his monetary and non-monetary benefits. The court recognized that grounding a pilot has financial implications, such as loss of flight allowance and future prospects. The court also acknowledged non-monetary consequences, including stigma and suspicion among colleagues. The court concluded that an order with such consequences is actionable.

2. Legality and Constitutionality of the 'No Flying' Order:
The petitioner argued that the 'no flying' order was arbitrary, unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional. The respondents contended that the petitioner's emotional state, as evidenced by his letters, rendered him unfit to fly, citing security considerations. The court noted that while the petitioner was allowed to undergo Airbus 310 conversion training, this did not preclude the government's exercise of power under Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act.

3. Validity of the Direction Under Section 34 of the Air Corporations Act:
The petitioner argued that a direction under Section 34 must be in writing and issued by the President, as per the General Clauses Act. The court held that Section 34 does not mandate writing as a compulsory condition for its validity and that the term "Central Government" in this context refers to the administering department/ministry, not the President personally.

4. Right to Allocation of Work During Employment:
The court examined whether an employee has the right to insist on the allocation of work. It was noted that while an employer can forbid an employee from working, this right is not absolute and must be exercised reasonably. The court cited precedents to support that a public servant cannot be kept in a state of suspended animation for an unreasonable length of time.

5. Claim of Privilege Over Intelligence Reports:
The respondents claimed privilege over intelligence reports concerning the petitioner's trustworthiness. The court accepted the affidavit from the Secretary to the Government of India, which stated that disclosing the reports would harm public interest. The court decided not to scrutinize the documents, emphasizing the sensitivity of the material and the potential harm from disclosure.

6. Delay in Decision-Making by the Government:
The court criticized the prolonged delay in making a final decision regarding the petitioner's 'no-flying' status. It emphasized the adverse impact on the petitioner's morale and the principle of natural justice that requires timely conclusion of such matters. The court granted the government 90 days to make a final decision.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the respondents to take a final decision regarding the 'no-flying' disability within 90 days, issuing a writ to this effect. The rule was partly made absolute, with each party bearing its own costs.

---