Pilot wants stay on order granting him Rs 55 lakh compensation vacated

New Delhi, June 2 A serving Indian Air Force (IAF) pilot Wing Commander Sanjeet Singh Kalia on Friday urged the Supreme Court to vacate the stay of the Delhi High Court order directing HAL and the Centre to pay him compensation of Rs 55 lakh, as order was passed without hearing him though he was on caveat.

The high court had ordered a compensation of Rs 55 lakh to be paid to Kalia for the injury suffered in a MiG-21 crash in 2005 that rendered him unfit to fly a fighter aircraft.

While lowering his medical category, the IAF had said that Kalia could fly transport aircraft and gliders only.

The high court, by its May 2 order, had asked the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) to pay a compensation of Rs 50 lakh and the central government to pay Rs five lakh. Besides, the court had also asked HAL to pay him Rs 50,000 as litigation cost.

Kalia told the vacation bench of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Deepak Gupta that he was on caveat, but due to certain technical glitches, the court registry could not inform him, and the May 23 order staying the High Court order was passed without hearing him.

The vacation bench directed to list the application seeking the vacation of stay by Kalia for July 17, as Additional Solicitor General Neeraj Kishan Kaul told the bench that the main issue -- the challenge to the Delhi High court order by the HAL -- was listed for hearing on July 17 as well and therefore, both applications could be taken up the same day.

Kalia's lawyer Bharat S. Kumar told the vacation bench that when they approached the top court registry after the high court order was stayed on May 23, they were told that they failed to inform about the listing of the matter due to technical glitches on account of ongoing upgradation.

The top court had on May 23 stayed the operation of the Delhi High Court order on an appeal by HAL.

In 2013, Kalia had moved the high court seeking direction to the government and HAL to issue a formal apology for alleged manufacturing defect and faulty workmanship of the MiG-21 fighter jet that led to its crash.

The high court, while granting compensation to Kalia, had said that putting officers of the armed forces into more than expected "normal risk" is against the fundamental right to life, especially the right to work in a safe environment guaranteed under the Constitution.

The HAL in its appeal has raised the question whether duty to provide safe working environment under Article 21 could be invoked against employer or could be extended to third parties, including the supplier of defence equipment.

Contesting the more than seven years' delay in approaching the court, HAL in another question of law has urged the court to examine whether a supplier of military equipment was liable to compensate for injury occurred out of and in the course of military service, especially when the supplier of military equipment had followed all Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and all reasonable steps were taken to ensure that the equipment was free from any defect.