TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - W.P.(C) 4683/2018 & CM 18016/2018, W.P.(C) 4684/2018 & CM 18017/2018 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2018 - MR. SUNIL GAUR, J. Mr. Raghav Kapoor, Advocate- For Petitioner Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Car Facility. It is also pointed out by petitioners counsel that as per sub-Rule 7 of Rule 6 of Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme), Rules 2001, the Regulations governing the service condition of the personnel transferred to respondent shall not be in any way less favourable to those applicable to them immediately before they are transferred from DVB to respondent-Company. So it is submitted that denial of Executive Car Facility to petitioners is wholly unjustified. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent submits that respondent is an independent identity and is not governed by the Delhi Transco Regulations. It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent that the Office Order of 3rd October, 2016 was clarificato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. 6. 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. Otherwise also, Clause 5 of the Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
