Disposed

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Mmtc Limited

Delhi HC6 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12480/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this service matter, the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming balance ex-gratia compensation. The Court directed the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and issue a reasoned order within six weeks regarding the petitioner's entitlement under the Office Memorandum and Circular.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide the claim regarding ex-gratia compensation within six weeks via a reasoned order.

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs Mmtc Limited — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~103

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 12480/2024 MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Versus MMTC LIMITED .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶4

O R D E R % 06.09.2024

¶5

This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Respondent to pay Rs.13,15,085/- on account of balance ex-gratia compensation to the Petitioner as per Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2023 passed by Department of Public Enterprises (‘DPE’), Ministry of Finance, Government of India and Circular dated 10.10.2023, as per which 60 months’ salary is payable towards ex-gratia payment.

¶6

Petitioner joined the Respondent on 14.07.1993 as Supervisor and was promoted from time to time. On 31.07.2023, an O.M. was issued by DPE as per which if an employee of a public enterprise takes voluntary retirement after completing 30 years of service with left over service of 5 years or more, he will be entitled for 60 months’ salary as ex-gratia compensation. This was followed by a Circular dated 10.10.2023 by the Respondent stipulating that if an employee of the Respondent completed 30 years of service then as per DH I pattern of VRS, the employee will be

¶7

W.P.(C) 12480/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶8

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 08:41:14

¶9

entitled to 60 months’ salary as ex-gratia payment. Petitioner avers that he joined the Respondent on 14.07.1993 and took VRS on 30.11.2023 and therefore had rendered a service of 30 years 4 months and 16 days on the date of VRS and was left with a service of more than 7 years as his date of birth is 19.02.1970. As per the last payment made by the Respondent on 27.02.2024, Petitioner calculated the ex-gratia amount and made representations to the Respondent for release of the said amount as per their own Circular and the O.M. dated 31.07.2023. However, Respondent has illegally deprived the Petitioner of his entitlement towards ex-gratia payment which amounts to Rs.13,15,085/- along with interest @ 24% p.a.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that several representations followed by a legal notice were sent to the Respondent but request of the Petitioner has been rejected by a sketchy and an unreasoned communication dated 22.04.2024 which does not indicate the reason for rejection of the claim of the Petitioner. It is submitted that it would suffice at this stage if a direction is issued to the Respondent to treat this petition as a representation and take a reasoned decision so that the Petitioner is able to know why according to the Respondent he is not entitled to the ex-gratia compensation despite O.M. dated 31.07.2023 and Circular dated 10.10.2023 entitling the Petitioner to the same.

¶11

In view of the limited relief claimed by the Petitioner, at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondent to treat the present writ petition as a representation and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order indicating the reasons why Petitioner is not entitled 60 months’ salary as ex-gratia payment in light of the O.M. and Circular referred above, as also the undisputed fact that the Petitioner meets the

¶12

W.P.(C) 12480/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 08:41:14

¶15

criteria of having completed 30 years of service and had a left over service of over 5 years when he took VRS. The decision shall be taken within six weeks from today and the speaking order so passed will be communicated to the Petitioner within one week from the date of the decision and Petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies, in case of any surviving grievance.

¶16

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶17

SEPTEMBER 6, 2024/ jg/shivam

¶18

3 of 3

¶19

W.P.(C) 12480/2024 Page

¶20

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Mmtc Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Sharma v. Mmtc Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Tyagi Vs Dav Public School & Ors.

R.P.Dabas Vs University Grants Commission

Ramavtar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Satinder Pal Singh Vs the Commissioner and Others

Ajay Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Om Prakash Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited and Others

M/S Capital Land Builder Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of East Delhi & Ors.

Shakti Singh Thakur Vs Union of India and Ors.

Umesh Kumar Tyagi Vs Dav Public School & Ors.

Sh.Suresh Kumar Vs Directorate of Education & Ors.

Shri Karan Chhabra & Ors. Vs Union of India through Director General of Metorlogy & Anr.

Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs Govt.of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rakesh Singh Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Tripti Mishra Vs Union Public Service Commission