Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to Executive Car Facility and whether the Office Order dated 3 October 2016 could be applied retrospectively to deny that facility.
Analysis: The petitioners had applied for the facility before the Office Order came into force, and the respondent's own policy did not make Grade Pay of Rs. 8900/- a stated condition; it required the concerned officer to be a DGM (M3a). The Court found that the earlier grant of the facility to one petitioner could not be treated as a mere oversight, since it had been extended only after approval. An office order is ordinarily prospective, and the later order could not be treated as merely clarificatory so as to take away an existing benefit retrospectively. The petitioners were also covered by the service-protection principle reflected in Rule 6(7) of the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001.
Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to the Executive Car Facility, and the impugned order denying it was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant the facility was set aside and the respondent was directed to extend the benefit after completion of formalities.
Ratio Decidendi: A later office order cannot be given retrospective effect to withdraw a service-related facility already applied for and governed by the employer's extant policy, unless the retrospective intent is clearly established.