Airports Authority Of India, Pensioners Forum vs Airports Authority of India
- Court
- Kerala High Court
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TH
MONDAY, THE 7 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 16TH BHADRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 21852 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PENSIONERS FORUM
AGED 70 YEARS
REP. THE PRESIDENT , RAJAN GEORGE S/O K. C. GEORGE,
(LATE), TC 5/888(1), AMBADY NAGAR LANE-3,
SREEKARIYA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695017
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.SETHUNATH
SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (K/1051/2010)
SHRI.SREEGANESH U.
SHRI.LAKSHMINARAYAN.R
SHRI.GAUTHAM KRISHNAN K.G.
SMT.SNEHA MARY SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS:
1 AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
2 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION,
RAJIV GANDHI BHAWAN, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT AREA, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110003
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-2-
4 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION
OPPOSITE SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, AUROBINDO MARG, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110003
5 THE SECRETARY (PENSION),
DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS WELFARE, LOK
NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.SANTHARAM
SHRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC
SRI N.S.DAYA SINDHU SREE HARI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.08.2026, THE COURT ON 07.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-3-
“CR”
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
th
Dated this the 7 day of September, 2026
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers.
'' i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to Respondent No.1, Airports
Authority of India, to take necessary steps including
the release of capitalization amount for the issuance
of Pension Payment Order to facilitate immediate
payment of Government Pension to the Petitioners
and payment of provisional Pension as contemplated
under Rule 69 of CCS (Pension) Rules,1972, till
Pension is granted.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to Respondent No.2, EPFO,
Ministry of Labor and Employment to issue
necessary orders for stopping the EPF pension
payment and communicate the same to all others
concerned;
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to Respondent No.3, Union of
India, to pass necessary orders for the grant of
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-4-
provisional Pension till regular Pension is sanctioned;
iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to Respondent No. 4, Director
General of Civil Aviation to take all necessary steps
to make immediate payment of Government Pension
to the petitioners;
v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to Respondent No.5, DoP &
PW to work out the arrears of payment due and
payable to the petitione rs and make lump sum
payment of the same after adjusting the payments,
if any, made under the EPS Scheme;
vi) pass such further orders as may be deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case as in the
interest of justice.’’
2. The petitioner is a Pensioners Forum represented by its
President. In paragraph 1 of the writ petition, it is stated that the
members of the petitioner Forum hail from different States across
India and there are hundreds of similarly placed petitioners across
the nation. In paragraph 21, details of 15 members of the petitioner
Forum who hail from different States have been mentioned. A
preliminary objection has been raised in the counter affidavit filed
st
by the 1 respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable. It is
stated that the petition has been filed by the Forum as a public
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-5-
interest litigation and since it is a service matter, no such writ
petition is permissible. It is stated that the individual members, if
they have got a grievance, should have raised it before the
appropriate statutory authority seeking CCS pension and since the
grievance is not of the Forum, the writ petition as filed, is not
maintainable. It is also pointed out that none of the aggrieved
persons have been joined as petitioners in the writ petition. Another
contention taken is that the writ petition is not maintainable for
want of territorial jurisdiction, since members of the Forum are
admittedly from outside Kerala and they have worked and retired in
other States and no part of the cause of action has arisen within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Arguments were addressed on the maintainability.
st
Counsel for the 1 respondent relied on the decisions in Vinoy
Kumar v. State of UP & Ors. [(2001) 4 SCC 734] , Tancem
Marketing Employees' Welfare Union v. Secretary to
Government & Ors. [(2019) SCC OnLine. Madras 26944] ,
Viswa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhag Karyalayam v. State of
Kerala [2025 KHC Online 1556] , Swakshtagrahi Sangh,
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-6-
Janpad Panchayat Niwas v. Union of India & Ors. [2022 (2)
MPLJ 526] , Paradip Port Trust Officer Pensioners'
Association v. Union of India & Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Orissa
2609] , State of Kerala & Anr. v. Kerala Government
Veterinary Officers Association & Ors. [OP KAT No. 316 of
2024] , Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers
Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. [OP(KAT)
No.447 of 2024] and All India BSNL Pensioners' Welfare
Association & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [OP(CAT) No. 60
of 2020] to contend that the petitioner has no locus standi to
prefer a writ petition. The counsel also relied on the decisions in Oil
and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors.
[(1994) 4 SCC 711] , Nakul Deo Singh v. Deputy
Commandant [1999 (3) KLT 629 (FB)] , Anand Anoop v.
Union of India [2014 SCC OnLine Kerala 28473= 2014 (3)
KLT 171] , The Registrar, Indian Maritime University v. Dr. K.
G. Viswanathan & Anr. [(2014) SCC OnLine Kerala 21221 =
2014 (4) KLT 798 (FB)] , Dental Council of India v.
Viswanath [2018 (3) KLT 255(FB)] , Aparna Balan v. Union of
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-7-
India [2018 (3) KLT 832] and ILA Rajeev (Minor) v. National
Institute of Design & Anr. [(2021) SCC OnLine Kerala 3059]
to contend that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to decide
the writ petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in
Central Government Pensioner's Association Kerala v. Union
of India & Anr. [WP(C)No.23282 of 2005] , All India Loco
Running Staff v. Union of India & Anr. [1985 (1) WLN 137] ,
Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.
1943 of 2022] , Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v. State of Gujarat
& Ors. [2009 KHC 1008] , Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors. v.
State of Orissa & Anr. [2009 KHC 5066] and Vineet Narain &
Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [1998 KHC 650] to contend that
this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the
petitioner.
CONSIDERATION:-
5. I shall first consider the question of territorial
jurisdiction. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission ( ONGC)
(supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, in determining
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-8-
an objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court must take all
the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into
consideration, albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the
correctness or otherwise of the said facts. A Full Bench of this Court
considered the issue in Nakul Deo Singh (supra) . That was a
case where the petitioners before the Court were subjected to
disciplinary enquiry, culminating in punishment. The enquiry and
punishment were all imposed when the petitioners were working
outside Kerala. In one case, the order was served while the
petitioner was working within Kerala, and in another case, the order
was served while he was working in New Delhi. But after the receipt
of the order, the petitioner returned to his native place at
Trivandrum. The Full Bench held that receipt of a communication by
itself will not constitute a fact in the bundle of facts constituting the
cause of action. The Court held that when the action complained of
takes place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and
an appeal is dismissed by an authority located outside the
jurisdiction of the High Court, the cause of action wholly arises
outside the jurisdiction of the High Court and Article 226(2) of the
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-9-
Constitution cannot be invoked to sustain a writ petition in the High
Court on the basis that a part of the cause of action had arisen
within the jurisdiction since the order was communicated while the
petitioner was residing or working within the jurisdiction of the
Court.
6. In Anand Anoop (supra) , the appellant before the
Court was a candidate who appeared for a pre-medical entrance
examination conducted by an institute which is situated in
Maharashtra. Applications were filed by the appellant for
nomination to the Central Pool seats before the officials in the
designated Ministry of the Government of India under the category
“Ward of Defence Personnel”, as his father was serving as
Command Aviation Officer in the Indian Navy. It is thereafter that
the appellant approached the High Court with a writ
petition seeking to finalise the select list of nominees to the Central
Pool seats. The writ petition was dismissed, finding that there was
no territorial jurisdiction. The Division Bench affirmed the decision,
relying on a judgment in ONGC (supra) . In doing so, the Division
Bench held that no cause of action either wholly or in part arose
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-10-
within the jurisdictional limits of the High Court of Kerala. The
Division Bench has also relied on the definition of the term “cause
of action” stated in Read v. Brown (1888 (22) QBD 128) , that
cause of action would mean “every fact which it would be necessary
for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right
to the judgment of the Court. It does not comprise every piece of
evidence which is necessary to prove each fact, but every fact
which is necessary to be proved.”
7. A Full Bench of this Court in The Registrar, Indian
Maritime University (supra) held that merely because a person
received the impugned order while he was working in Kerala is not
sufficient to say that a part of the cause of action had arisen within
the jurisdiction of this Court. On facts, the Court also found that
there was no pleading to the effect that this Court had territorial
jurisdiction over the cause of action. In Dental Council of India
(supra), the petitioners before the Court were practising Dental
Surgeons, and their challenge was regarding the nomination of a
person who was working in West Bengal Government Service to the
Dental Council of India (DCI). A Division Bench of this Court
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-11-
referred the question whether the exercise of function by DCI
throughout the territories of India would confer jurisdiction on
every Court in India to challenge an election to the Dental Council
which is held at New Delhi, to a Full Bench. The Full Bench held that
a writ petition can be maintained only in a High Court within whose
territorial jurisdiction, the person, authority or the Government
against which relief is sought is situated and within whose
jurisdiction the cause of action either wholly or in part has arisen
and that in order to determine the said question, the fact that the
authority or Government concerned has been invested with power
all over the country or affecting all citizens, is not of any relevance.
The Full Bench overruled the judgment of this Court in Dr. Joseph
Issac v. Union of India [2010 (3) KHC 265] , wherein it was
held that the investiture of authority on DCI affects the entire
society and all the people of the country, either directly or
indirectly, and, therefore, to deny jurisdiction to this Court on the
basis of location of the office of the DCI or on the belief that the
seat of the office of the Government of India is located in Delhi
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-12-
would be a pedantic understanding of jurisdiction of the Court and
unjust to the people of this country.
8. In Aparna Balan (supra) , a Division Bench of this
Court held that the terms “right of action” and “cause of action” are
neither synonymous nor interchangeable and that a person residing
anywhere in the country, being aggrieved by an order of the
Government, Central or State or authority or person, may have a
right of action in law but the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 can be invoked only when the cause of
action arises within the territorial jurisdiction either wholly or in
part. That was a case relating to selection of badminton players for
the national team to represent India and the persons who
approached the Court were badminton players of the State of
Kerala. However, the selection process was held outside Kerala. A
learned Single Judge of this Court in ILA Rajeev (Minor) (supra)
considered a case where a selection test was conducted online and
the petitioner before the Court participated from the State of
Kerala. The Court held that the mere fact that the situs from where
the candidate accessed the site of National Institute of Design for
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-13-
participating in the test was in Kerala would not confer jurisdiction
to the High Court of Kerala since the selection process was
conducted in the State of Gujarat.
9. Applying the above tests to the facts of this case, it can
be seen that the members of the petitioner Forum belonged to
different States across India and they had worked outside Kerala
and retired from other States. A class litigation by the Forum on
behalf of such persons cannot be entertained by this Court merely
on the ground that the Forum has its address in Kerala. It cannot
be said that any part of the cause of action arose within the
territorial limits of Kerala. It relates to benefits of service like grant
of pension, and, merely because the respondent authorities are
exercising jurisdiction over the entirety of India, it will not by
itself confer jurisdiction on every High court in India. I hence find
that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ
petition.
10. The next question to be considered is whether the
petitioner has locus standi to prefer the writ petition. In Vinoy
Kumar (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that generally a
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-14-
person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not
personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental
rights have neither been directly nor substantially invaded, the
exception being writ petitions seeking a writ of habeas corpus
or quo warranto or one filed in public interest. In Tancem
Marketing Employees' Welfare Union (supra) , a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Madras held that the Secretary of
an employees' union cannot maintain a writ challenging promotions
allegedly made in violation of the existing promotion policy of the
employer, since a writ petition can be filed only by a person who is
personally aggrieved, especially in service matters.
11. In Viswa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhag Karyalayam
(supra) , a Division Bench of this Court relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neetu v. State of Punjab & Ors.
[(2007) 10 SCC 614] and held that a public interest litigation was
not maintainable in service matters relating to caste certificate. In
Swakshtagrahi Sangh, Janpad Panchayat Niwas (supra) , a
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that an
association can maintain a writ petition on behalf of the members
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-15-
only if it satisfies the court that if an adverse decision is given in
the petition, all the members of that association will be bound by
the decision, since it is always possible that an independent writ
petition is filed by an individual member stating that he had not
been heard and he had not authorised the association to represent
him in the litigation. In Paradip Port Trust Officer Pensioners'
Association (supra) , the High Court of Orissa held that an
association can maintain a writ petition under Article 226,
espousing the cause of its members only if the members
themselves are unable to approach the court by reason of poverty,
disability or economically disadvantaged position and in cases
where public injury leading to public interest litigation, provided the
association has some concern deeper than that of a wayfarer or
busybody. Reference was made to a Division Bench judgment of the
Madras High Court in Secretary to Government, Chennai-9, v.
Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary Vocational Teachers
Association [Writ Appeal No.1792 of 2017] wherein the
Madras High Court had held that the association has no locus standi
to approach the court for the purpose of claiming service benefits to
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-16-
its members. In Kerala Government Veterinary Officers
Association (supra) , a Division Bench of this Court held that the
person who is aggrieved by the transfer alone has locus standi
to approach the Tribunal to challenge the order. In Kerala State
Government Ayurveda Medical Officers Association (supra) ,
another Division Bench of this Court explained the above judgment
by holding that if more than one person is affected by a transfer,
they can join in one petition through an association but in the said
process, the individual list will have to be furnished. In All India
BSNL Pensioners' Welfare Association (supra) , another
Division Bench of this Court held that it is settled law that an
association cannot espouse the grievance of the members with
regard to their service benefits, while considering the prayer for
extension of revision of pension benefits to pre-2006 DOT-absorbed
BSNL IDA pensioners. The Division Bench held that relief can be
granted only to the individual pensioner who had approached the
court. The above judgments would clearly indicate that the
petitioner association cannot maintain this writ petition
or espouse the cause of its members relating to their service
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-17-
benefits. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ
petition can be maintained by the Association. Reliance was placed
on several judgments, which are dealt with in the following
paragraphs.
12. In Central Government Pensioner's Association
(supra) , a learned Single Judge considered a writ petition filed by
the Central Government Pensioner's Association seeking orders
restoring the commuted portion of pension after 12 years of
commutation. The writ petition was entertained and the reliefs were
granted. The Court held that the right to receive pension is not a
bounty given by the employer. However, a reading of the judgment
would show that the Court had not considered the question of
maintainability of the writ petition. In All India Loco Running
Staff (supra) , a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court
held that a writ petition by the Association for restoration of
benefits which were deprived to them was maintainable. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel (supra) held
that it is a well-settled principle of law that where a citizen
aggrieved by an action of the Government Department has
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-18-
approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his or
her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the
benefit, without the need for them to approach the Court. The said
judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner does not deal
with the locus standi of an association to prefer an application or to
prefer a petition espousing the cause of the members relating to
their service benefits. The said judgment has no application to the
facts of this case.
13. In Babubhai Jamnadas Patel (supra) , relied on by
the counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the High Courts and the Supreme Court are sentinels of justice and
have been vested with extraordinary powers of judicial review
and supervision to ensure that the rights of citizens are duly
protected. The said principle cannot be applied to the facts of this
case. It is settled law that non-exercise of the discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a matter
of self-imposed restriction and this Court will
not exercise jurisdiction merely because it has a power under
Article 226.
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-19-
14. In Kedar Narayan Parida (supra) , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that when an illegality or a mala fide action on
the part of the Investigating Authorities, is brought to the notice of
the High Courts, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent and
plenary powers are entitled to intervene to set right the illegality or
the mala fide action on the part of the Investigating Authorities.
The said judgment also cannot be applied to the facts of this case,
where an association has filed a writ petition claiming service
benefits to its members, a majority of whom are from outside
Kerala and relating to service rendered outside the State. In Vineet
Narain (supra), relied on by the counsel for the petitioner, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued certain directives in exercise of
its powers under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution
of India, which related to code of conduct in public life. After laying
down the principles, the Court held that those principles of public
life are of general application in every democracy and one is
expected to bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of
every holder of a public office. The said judgment also cannot be
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-20-
taken to be an authority to prove that this writ petition is
maintainable.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that
it is not maintainable at the instance of the Association and also on
the ground that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
dsn/pn
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-21-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21852/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING DATED 6.3.2019 HELD UNDER THE
CHAIRMANSHIP OF ADDL. SECRETARY & FINANCIAL
ADVISOR, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. AV-
20036/805/2015-AAI-MOCA DATED 19.8.2019 WIDE
WHICH THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING AFORESAID WAS
CIRCULATED TO ALL CONCERNED
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.8.2019
PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN W.P (C)
NO. 34416 OF 2017
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.12.2019
FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
CIVIL AVIATION, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL
AVIATION
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.10.2021
FROM THE EPFO, HEAD ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN
AAI
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO. 1245/194/2021-F-1-
MOCA (205886) DATED 11.1.2022
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO. 1245/194/2021-F-1-
MOCA (205886) DATED 11.1.2022 ADDRESSES TO
MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Exhibit P8 THAT A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
02.06.2022 BY THE AAI PENSIONERS FORUM TO THE
HON’BLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE GUWAHATI
HIGH COURT DATED 25.4.2023 IN W.P (C) NO. 675
OF 2023 TITLED KARUNA RANI ROY V. THE AIRPORT
AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND 9 OTHERS
Exhibit.P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11-10-2019 LONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW OF THE AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY PENSIONERS’ FORUM
Exhibit.P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-22-
BENCH OF THIS COURT IN O.P(KAT) NO. 447/ 2024
DATED 29-10-2024
Exhibit.P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONER FORUM BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS
1,3 AND 4 DATED 3-6-2020
Exhibit.P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONER FORUM BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10-1-2022
Exhibit.P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONER FORUM BEFORE THE PRIME MINISTER
OF INDIA DATED 7-7-2020
Exhibit.P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONER FORUM BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1
AND 3 DATED 16-3-2023
Exhibit.P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY
THE PETITIONER FORUM BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 30-1-2023
Exhibit.P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.M NO. NO.4/18/87-P AND
PW (D) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS DATED 5-7-1989
Exhibit.P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL CIVIL (PENSION)
AMENDMENT RULES 2000 DATED 30-9-2000
Exhibit.P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
E.P.F ORGANIZATION TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA DATED 8-11-2019
Exhibit.P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
A60011/54/PENCELL/HR/CHQ/EFILE89578/43 DATED
21-3-2024 ISSUED BY GNERAL MANAGER (HR)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit -R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO. AV-
20036/805/2015-AAI- MOCA DATED 10.10.2017
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
CIVIL AVIATION, ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN,
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, ALONG
WITH MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 20.09.2017
Exhibit -R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD
ON 03.05.2018 UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
Exhibit-R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD UNDER
W.P.(C)No.21852 of 2024
CNR : KLHC011152712024
2026:KER:67357
-23-
THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY &
FINANCIAL ADVISOR, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION
ON 06.03.2019
Exhibit-R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
A60011/54/P.CELL(HR)/CHQ/3537 DATED 20.03.2019
ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL QUARTERS OF THE AIRPORTS
AUTHORITY OF INDIA TO THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
Exhibit -R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
A.60011/54/CAD/P.CELL/2019/HR/CHQ/1158-65DATED
17.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL HEAD
QUARTERS, AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDA TO THE
REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Exhibit-R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
DL/CPM/36478/CAD PENSION DATED 01.07.2021
ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit-R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. AV-
24032/39/2023-AAI-MOCA DATED 26.02.2024 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
Exhibit-R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. AV-
24032/39/2023-AAI-MOCA DATED 25.10.2024 ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI
Exhibit -R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO. AV-
24032/39/2023-AAI-MOCA (235911) DATED
10.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION