IMPORTANT POINT
Financial benefits cannot be claimed as a right by the employees and are a discretion vested with the public authority/employer. The court cannot issue a writ of mandamus if there is no error apparent on the face of it or the error does not go to the root of the matter.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

FACTUAL MATRIX

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to compliance of Reinforcement Mechanisms para of the 58th Board Meeting held on 28/06/2006 and Office Circular No. 21 of 2006- 2007.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 1 to give all the consequential benefits as mentioned in Reinforcement Mechanisms para of the 58th Board Meeting held on 28/06/2006 and Office Circular No. 21 of 2006-2007 with retrospective effect from their joining date with 18% interest with in a period of one month.

(iii) Costs of this Petition; and

(iv) During the pendency of this petition no adverse order be passed against the petitioner

(v) Pass such further orders and/or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, appropriate and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner joined his duty with the respondent no.1 w.e.f 20th September, 2011 at the post of Assistant Vice President.

3. The respondent No. 1 is UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Limited (hereinafter "UTIITSL"), promoted by the erstwhile Unit Trust of India and incorporated as a limited company on 19th May 1993, to serve the investors of UTI schemes. Consequent to enactment of the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act 2002, the company is construed as a Government Company under section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013. It is a government-owned company and provides technology and outsourcing services to the financial and government sectors of India. The respondent No. 2 is the Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (hereinafter "DIPAM"), Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.

4. The petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing no. W.P (C) 2031/2018 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court seeking quashing of office order no./3/2016-17, Office Order No./4/2016-17, Office Order No./6/2016-17 to Office Order No./36/2016-17 dated 22nd April 2016 and Office Order No. 67 dated 21st July 2016.

5. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.1 relied upon certain guidelines and accordingly, vide order dated 12th July 2022, the Coordinate Bench directed the respondent No.1 to place on record the guidelines upon which it was relying.

6. Pursuant to which, the respondent no. 1, filed the Minutes of the 58th Board Meeting held on 28th June 2006 and an office Circular No. 21/2006-2007.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner sent various representations to the respondent No. 1 with a request to give all the financial benefits as mentioned in the approved Minutes of the 58th Board Meeting held on 28th June 2006 and office Circular No. 21/2006- 2007.

8. Aggrieved by the denial of financial benefits as mentioned in Reinforcement Mechanisms para of approved Minutes of the 58th Board Meeting and Office Circular No. 21/ 2006- 2007, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS

(on behalf of the petitioner)

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 1 is habitual of not disclosing the Minutes and important Circulars /Orders/APARs in the public domain. It is further submitted that Circular No. 21/2006-2007 was uploaded by respondent No. 1 on their intranet website in June/July/August of the year 2022 instead of its actual published date as given in the circular.

10. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 5th September 2022 in writ petition bearing no. WP(C) 2031/2018, held that the Court has not been shown any material by the respondents which may have established that the criteria for promotion was made known to the aspiring employees and officers prior to the initiation of the promotion process.

11. It is submitted that the act of the respondent No. 1 goes agains