HC to Punjab: Spell out policy on aviation clubs

The directions were passed on a bunch of petitions filed by employees and officials of Patiala Aviation Club. The petitioners had moved the High Court demanding release of their salaries which have not been paid since 1998. While the petitioners had argued that it was the state government which had a legal and statutory obligation to pay their salaries,the State government had opposed the same saying that there was no employer-employee relationship between the two.

The bench headed by Justice Surya Kant has recorded certain significant findings and observations on the plight of aviation clubs in Punjab. “One cannot lose sight of the fact that various authorities of the State Government have shown keen interest in setting-up the aviation clubs. A big chunk of prime land,aircraft and other equipment was made available for these clubs by Punjab. Even before the year 2000 (when this court issued directions for the release of adequate grant-in-aid regularly),the State Government has been granting financial aid to the clubs from time to time. The initial interest expressed by the State in the affairs of these clubs started fading with the passage of time and finally reached a stage where the State Government wanted to wash-off its hands from any kind of liability,” the judge said.

Referring to the stand taken by the State government,the high court has held,”though the respondents (State government) cannot be directed to take over the management of aviation clubs or release funds for their smooth functioning,the affairs and activities of the clubs cannot be left unattended”.

Though the high court has dismissed the bunch of petitions filed by the employees of the Patiala Aviation club,it has asked the state to formulate an aviation policy which will also decide the fate of hundreds of employees who have not received salaries for the past 15 years.

In its detailed judgement,the Bench ruled “there is no binding contract between the clubs and the State Government which obligates the latter to provide financial aid to the former to defray its day-to-day expenses”.

The court has also recorded the “sweet-will” of the State Government in providing financial assistance in the name of “discretionary” release and the “undue favour” exhibited to some of the State functionaries by creating such clubs.

“In the absence of any obligation or an enforceable bilateral agreement,it is beyond the jurisdictional scope of this Court to compel or command the respondents to release funds from the State exchequer in favour of the petitioners or their parent organisations,” reads the order.