The court ruled that employment benefits must adhere to company policies and performance evaluations, affirming the petitioner's entitlement to certain benefits while denying others based on eligibility criteria.

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is originally filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in denying the petitioner the benefits, viz., (i) Compensation Revision of 2014 in accordance with Circular, dated 04.09.2014, and Corrigendum, dated 08.09.2014, (ii) Annual Increment from the year 2014 onwards (iii) Retention bonus (iv) Excess rental paid on account of being forced out of company residence due to illegal termination and (v) Interest on the dues and other consequential benefits, as improper, illegal and unconstitutional.

2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 seeking to amend the prayer in the original writ petition by substituting with the following prayer:-

“to direct the respondents to extend the following benefits:-

(i) Pay revision: Highest revision given to any other employee for the year 2014 onwards

(ii) Performance pay: 30% of basic pay

(iii) Annual increment: Maximum annual increment given to any other employee from 2014 onwards

(iv) Retention bonus and

(v) Grade promotion: Equal to maximum number of promotions given to any other employee of the company since 2007.”

3. Heard Sri Narendra Agrawal, the petitioner, as party-in- person, and Sri Avinash Desai, learned senior counsel representing Sri M.Pranav, learned counsel on record for the respondents.

4. This case has got a chequered history. The facts of the case, in nut-shell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Grade M-III Manager in marketing department of the respondent company in the year 2007 for a period of three years and subsequently, his appointment was renewed through renewal letters till the year 2012; that he was promoted as Grade M-II Manager in the same department in the year 2013; that subsequently, he was terminated by the respondents in the year 2015 without assigning any reason; that challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4159 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 24.11.2016 pleased to set aside the termination order and pursuant the said orders, he was reinstated into service, vide proceedings dated 09.02.2017; and that simultaneously, the respondents challenged the order dated 24.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.4159 of 2015 by way of filing Writ Appeal, vide W.A.No.143 of 2017 and the said Writ Appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 04.01.2021.

5. During the pendency of W.A.No.143 of 2017, the respondents, as per Rule-31 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, have once again terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that the company had lost confidence upon him, vide order dated 11.10.2018. The petitioner challenged the said termination order by filing W.P.No.38211 of 2018 and in the said Writ Petition, this Court passed interim order, dated 25.10.2018, in I.A.No.1 of 2018 suspending the order of termination. Against the said order, the respondents filed W.A.No.1540 of 2018 and the said Writ Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2018. Subsequently, WP.No.38211 of 2018 was allowed setting aside the termination order, vide order dated 17.09.2019.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed W.A.No.763 of 2019, however, the said Writ Appeal was dismissed, vide orders dated 25.02.2022. Challenging the order passed in W.A.No.763 of 2019, the respondents approached Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (C) Nos.8633-8635 of 2021 and 4919 of 2022 respectively, but eventually, the same were dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2022. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service by the respondent company, vide order dated 03.10.2022. However, alleging that the respondents have denied him the benefits which he is entitled to, the petitioner filed