GRAP norms do not create enforceable work-from-home rights for Central staff: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court, observing the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) as a regulatory tool for pollution management and not as a source of individual service rights, rejected a central government employee’s request for work-from-home, who alleged non-compliance with anti-pollution directions at his workplace.
Justice Sachin Datta characterised the situation as while CAQM’s (Commission for Air Quality Management) GRAP directions should be followed strictly; still, the situation should not be interpreted as granting the employees enforceable rights against their employers, particularly concerning current service regulations.
‘GRAP provisions concerning work from home only vest discretion in the Central Government’
The Court was hearing a petition filed by an employee holding the title of Scientist-E at the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT), who alleged that construction and demolition works were taking place at the office premises in complete violation of the GRAP norms, resulting in the very poor indoor air quality and respiratory problems.
The petitioner asked for orders to be issued for immediate compliance with the GRAP orders, inspection of the premises, and allowing work from home, with the period of absence counted as ‘on duty’ treatment.
The Court, while rejecting these pleas, pointed out that the GRAP provisions concerning work from home only vest discretion in the Central Government and do not impose a mandatory obligation.
Moreover, it observed that the relevant GRAP Stage-III provisions under which the work-from-home measures were discussed had already been revoked by the CAQM and that the revocation was effective November 26, 2025.
“There is no occasion for issuance of a mandamus for effectively altering applicable service conditions in the guise of compliance with GRAP orders,” the Court said, according to ANI.
However, the Court, while considering the medical issues pointed out by the petitioner, made it clear that he would be at liberty to seek a transfer from Delhi to another place on health grounds. The Court also directed the employer to endeavour to consider such a request favourably, if made.
