GRAP Guidelines Don't Create An Enforceable Personal Right: Delhi High Court Dismisses Scientist’s Plea Seeking Work-From-Home

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Scientist employed with the autonomous telecommunications technology development centre, functioning under the administrative control, direct supervision, and financial funding of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, seeking Work From Home to “avoid dust and smoke exposure” as advised by a doctor.

The Court said that the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to work from home in terms of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) guidelines is misplaced.

The Single Bench Justice Sachin Datta stated that, “Notably, the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) and the attendant guidelines are in the nature of regulatory measures stipulated to address polluting activities and empower the regulatory authorities (CAQM and DPCC) to issue necessary directions…The objective behind implementation of GRAP cannot be construed as to create an enforceable personal right upon individual employees. It rather confers an obligation upon institutions/authorities/citizens to adhere to and support in maximizing, as far as practicable and feasible, the implementation of the pollution-mitigating solutions stipulated thereunder.”

Advocate Sourabh Prakash appeared for the petitioner, and Advocate Rohit Dutta for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The petitioner is a ‘Scientist-E’, employed with an autonomous telecommunications technology development centre. The primary issue canvassed by the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner is undertaking construction and demolition activities on its premises, in violation of the directions contained in the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). It is stated that the said activities are not only in contravention of the attendant guidelines but are non-essential activities causing dust inside the premises, direct exposure to which, in an already prevalent hazardous Air Quality Index (AQI) is causing respiratory distress to the petitioner. It is further averred that CAQM has prescribed Work From Home (WFH) for at least 50% of all employees in offices in Delhi; however, C-DOT has not complied with the said instructions either. Further, the petitioner developed medical issues and has been advised by a doctor to “avoid dust and smoke exposure”. It is pointed out that although the petitioner highlighted the same to the C-DOT and sought WFH but the C-DOT did not respond.

Furthermore Court added, “In any event, there is no occasion for issuance of a mandamus for effectively altering applicable service condition/s in the guise of compliance with GRAP orders. As such, no merit is found in the present petition.”

Cause Title: Shubham Verma v. Centre for Development of Telematics C-DOT and Ors. (W.P.(C) 18217/2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner Advocate Sourabh Prakash, Advocate Utsav Jain.

Respondent Advocate Rohit Dutta, Advocate Shyam Kishore Maurya, Advocate Ananya Jain, Advocate Akshita Gupta.

Click here to read/download the Order