9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 990 - HC - Indian LawsEntitlement to Executive Car Facility - petitioner-Kulranjan Toppo is holding the post of DGM (IT) in the Grade Pay of ₹ 7600/- and petitioner-Sunil Dwivedi is holding the post of DGM (Finance) in the same Grade Pay - Held that - All that is required as per respondent s Executive Car Policy (Annexure-4) is that the concerned Officer has to be DGM (M3a). It is not the case of respondent that petitioners are not DGM (M3a). It is matter of record that petitioners had applied for the Executive Car Facility in question before the Office Order of 3rd October, 2016 came into force. It needs no reiteration that an Office Order is to operate prospectively. In case of petitioners, it is sought to be operated retrospectively on the plea that it is a clarification and not an amendment. 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. Respondent is directed to provide the Executive Car Facility to petitioners upon completion of necessary formalities within a period of six weeks from today - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned orders rejecting petitioners' representations for Executive Car Facility based on Grade Pay criteria. Analysis: The judgment dealt with two petitions challenging the rejection of petitioners' representations for Executive Car Facility due to Grade Pay criteria. The petitioners, holding the post of DGM (IT) and DGM (Finance) with Grade Pay of ?7600, argued that the Office Order of 3rd October, 2016 should not operate retrospectively. They highlighted that managers with the same Grade Pay were provided the facility as per RTI information. The petitioners also cited rules ensuring service conditions post-transfer from DVB to the respondent company. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the Grade Pay requirement for the facility existed prior to the Office Order and was clarificatory. The respondent's Executive Car Policy specified entitlement for DGM (M3a) only, not all DGMs, and argued that the facility was discretionary, not a right. The court observed that the Executive Car Facility granted to one petitioner in 2012 was not due to oversight as it required approval. The Executive Car Policy did not mention a Grade Pay of ?8900, only the position of DGM (M3a). Since the petitioners applied for the facility before the Office Order of 3rd October, 2016, it should not apply retrospectively. The court emphasized that an Office Order should operate prospectively, and as the petitioners were DGMs, they were entitled to the facility as per the respondent's Executive Car Policy. Consequently, the court directed the respondent to provide the Executive Car Facility to the petitioners within six weeks. The petitions and applications were disposed of based on the court's directions.
|
