Delhi HC rejects scientist’s plea for mandatory work from home under GRAP

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Scientist-E employed with an autonomous telecommunications technology development centre under the Department of Telecommunications, who had sought permission to work from home citing health issues arising from severe air pollution in the national capital.

The petitioner, Shubham Verma, approached the court claiming that despite the Commission for Air Quality Management prescribing work from home for at least 50% of employees in offices across Delhi from November 21, 2025, his office failed to comply with the instructions.

According to the plea, Mr. Verma developed medical issues on November 23, 2025, due to the prevailing air quality conditions and was advised by a doctor to “avoid dust and smoke exposure”. He claimed that despite seeking permission to work from home between November 23 and November 27, 2025, no response was received from his employer.

The petitioner sought directions to allow him to work from home until the organisation could certify that indoor air quality was within permissible limits, and further requested that the period be treated as on duty even if he was unable to physically report to office.

Justice Sachin Datta, in an order passed on December 9, said he was not persuaded by the arguments advanced on behalf of Mr. Verma. The court observed that the Graded Response Action Plan (GARP) and its attendant guidelines are regulatory measures intended to curb polluting activities and empower authorities such as the Commission for Air Quality Management and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee to issue directions.

“No doubt, the said regulatory measures are required to be implemented scrupulously. However, the same cannot be construed as conferring rights on central government officials or employees against their employers in derogation of their service conditions,” Justice Datta observed.

The court further noted that the relevant GRAP guideline dated November 21, 2025, vests discretion with the central government regarding the grant of work from home and does not impose a mandatory obligation.

Terming the petitioner’s claim of an automatic entitlement to work from home as “misplaced”, the court nonetheless observed that in view of his medical exigencies, he would be at liberty to request his employer for a transfer out of Delhi.