Two writ petitions challenging the rejection of claims for Executive Car Facility. The court held that the office order was not clarificatory but prospective, and directed the respondent to provide the facility to petitioners who are DGMs.
Respondent directed to provide Executive Car Facility to petitioners within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Date of Decision: May 04, 2018
KULRANJAN TOPPO SUNIL DWIVEDI ....Petitioners Through: Mr. Raghav Kapoor, Advocate
versus
TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
7600/- and petitioner- _Sunil Dwivedi_ is holding the post of DGM (Finance) in the same Grade Pay, but as per clarification made in paragraph No.5 of Office Order of 3<sup>rd</sup> October, 2016, the entitlement to Executive Car Facility is only for those employees who are in the Grade Pay of 8900/- and above.W.Ps.(C) 4683-84/2018
Page 1 of 4
W.Ps.(C) 4683-84/2018
Page 2 of 4
petitioner- Kulranjan Toppo in September, 2016 was promptly refunded to him in October, 2016. Attention of this Court is drawn to respondent’s Executive Car Policy (Annexure P-4 in W.P.(C) 4683/2018) to point out that the entitlement to Executive Car Facility under this Policy is of DGM (M3a) and not of all DGMs. The precise submission of learned counsel for respondent is that the benefit of Executive Car Facility is not part of service condition and this facility is extended by Management in its discretion and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. So, it is submitted that these petitions deserve dismissal.
W.Ps.(C) 4683-84/2018
Page 3 of 4
Since Executive Car Facility was extended to petitioner- Kulranjan Toppo way back in the year 2012, therefore, it cannot be said that impugned Office Order of 3rd October, 2016 is of clarificatory nature. Otherwise also, Clause 5 of the Office Order of 3rd October, 2016 making ‘Executive Car Policy’ applicable to employees, who are DGM and above in the Grade Pay of `8900/- cannot be given retrospective effect. Since petitioners are DGM, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit of Executive Car Facility as per respondent’s Executive Car Policy (Annexure-4) .
(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE
MAY 04, 2018 s
W.Ps.(C) 4683-84/2018
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an office order clarifying that Executive Car Facility is only for employees in Grade Pay 8900 and above operates retrospectively.
Whether petitioners holding the post of DGM are entitled to the Executive Car Facility under the respondent's policy.
Whether the denial of Executive Car Facility to petitioners was unjustified given their previous application and record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kulranjan Toppo
Sunil Dwivedi
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court