Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Lalu Sardar vs C S I R on 1 April, 2026
1 O.A. 350/1483/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/1483/2018 Date of Hearing: 09.03.2026
Date of Order: 01.04.2026
Coram : Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
1. Sri Lalu Sardar, son of Late Abu Sardar, aged about 50 years,
residing at 92/1A, Jadavpur Station Road, Calcutta-700032
working as High Skilled Labour in the Group 'D' establishment
in the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology from 1991.
2. Sri Shyamal Kumar Midya, son of Sri Bhutnath Midya, Aged
about 44 years, residing at 46, Garia Gunamani, Sapuie Road,
Calcutta - 700078 working as High Skilled Labour in the Group
'D' establishment in the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology
from 1989.
3. Sri Gopal Chandra Sardar, son of Sri Srikanta Sardar, aged
about 46 years, residing at Village & P.O. Chatkhali, P.S.
Canning, District-24 Parganas (South) working as High Skilled
Labour in the Group 'D' Establishment in the Indian Institute of
Chemical Biology from 1991.
....... Applicants.
-versus-
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Science &
Technology, Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Director General, Council of Scientific & Industrial
Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Director, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology (A Unit of
CSIR), 4, Raja S.C. Mallick Road, Jadavpur, Calcutta 700032.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West
Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. 350/1483/2018
4. Controller of Administration, Indian Institute of Chemical
Biology (A Unit of CSIR), 4, Raja S.C. Mallick Road, Jadavpur,
Calcutta -700032.
5. Rintu Bhattacharyya, Working as Multi Tasking Staff in the
CSIR-IICB in the office of 11 CB in the Office of IICB (A Unit of
CSIR) 4, Raja, S. C. Mallick Road, Jadavpur CALCUTTA-700032
...... Respondents.
For the Applicants : Mr. P.C. Das, Ms. T. Maity; Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Das; Counsel
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. This O.A was disposed of on 25.04.2025 by this Tribunal allowing the prayer of the applicant. The respondents filed an appeal against our order dated 25.04.2025 in the Hon'ble High Court by filing WPCT No. 241 of 2025 which quashed and set aside our order remanding the matter back to the Tribunal on the ground that adequate time and opportunity was not granted to the respondents to engage a new counsel after their earlier counsel returned the brief. Hon'ble High Court disposed of the WPCT by passing following observations and directions:
"In this backdrop, we are unable to countenance the order dated 31.01.2025 and consequential impugned order dated 25.04.2025 in all the matters. These orders are set aside. Resultantly, the applications, being nos. O.A.350/181/2012, O.A.350/1776/2018, O.A.350/1483/2018 and O.A.350/1357/2016, are restored to their original file and number. The Tribunal is requested to re-hear the parties and decide the matters afresh in accordance with law.
8. It shall be the duty of CSIR to engage a lawyer for which no further notice will be required to be issued by the Tribunal. As per stand of counsel for CSIR, the Department will not ask for any adjournment before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is requested to hear and decide the matter within two months from the date of production of a copy of this order.Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O.A. 350/1483/2018
9. With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits, these writ petitions are disposed of. Connected applications, if there be any, are also disposed of."
Accordingly, the matter was heard again.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):
"a) Leave be granted to move the single application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Procedure Rules, 1987.
(b) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondents to regularize the services of the present applicants who have been engaged as High Skilled Labours in the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology with effect from 1989 and who have been granted temporary status with effect from 03.08.2009 and who have been completed the 240 days service and their regularization should be given effect to after completion of 240 days of service (206 days in a calendar year)vide Annexure A-11 of this O.A. and to give all consequential benefits.
(c) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondents authority to regularize your applicants in Group 'D" post on permanent basis in the main establishment with effect from the date when their junior has got the permanent status in the said department and to give all consequential benefits in respect of that.
(d) Costs;
(e) Any other appropriate relief or reliefs as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper."
3. Facts of the case in brief as stated by the applicants are as under:-
a) The applicants in the instant O.A. had been serving under the respondents as Casual Labours since 1989, but they were not given temporary status though their juniors were given such benefit.
According to the applicants, they had rendered their services in the respondents' department at the time when the Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1993 (Annexure A/11 to the O.A.) came into force and as per the said Office Memorandum, the casual employees who had rendered a continuous service of at least one year i.e. 240 days in a Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
4 O.A. 350/1483/2018 year, would be given temporary status. As such benefit was not extended to the applicants, they had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 60 of 2007, which was disposed of vide Order dated 05.04.2007 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in accordance with the said Office Memorandum dated 01.09.1993 in case the said O.M. was applicable to the applicants and they were still working in the department. The respondents were further directed to pass a reasoned order within four months from the date of that order and communicate the decision to the applicant within a further period of fifteen days (Annexure A/12 to the O.A.).
b) Pursuant to the said order, the respondents had granted temporary status to the applicants vide order dated 03.08.2007 (Annexure A/13 to the O.A.) which was later confirmed vide order dated 29.08.2007 (Annexure A/14 to the O.A.). Their pay had been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4440-7440/- vide Office Memorandum dated 29.10.2008 (Annexure A/15 to the O.A.). The applicants were recommended for Multi-Skilled Training Programme which was fixed on 13.08.2012 and 14.08.2012 for consideration of their case against a permanent post of Multi-Designated Staff vide Office Memorandum dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure A/16 to the O.A.). Thereafter their pay was revised to Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- as per VIth Central Pay Commision's recommendation, vide Memorandum dated 21.08.2012 (Annexure A/17 to the O.A.). Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A. 350/1483/2018
c) Grievance of the applicants is that, despite successful completion of Multi-Skilled Training Programme as conducted by the CSIR-IICB as temporary status employees, the respondents have not regularized their services against Group 'C' posts till date. Hence, this O.A.
4. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the CSIR-IICB forwarded the DoPT's Office Memorandum dated 26.02.2016 (Annexure A/19 to the O.A.) for consideration of the employees of temporary status for granting them Old Pension Scheme benefits in terms of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. He has further submitted that despite such Circular, the respondent authorities neither have regularized the services of the applicants nor have extended the benefit of Old Pension Scheme to them. Learned Counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that other Central Government Casual employees with temporary status, were regularized in view of the DoPT's Circular on the subject, but the applicants in the instant O.A. were left out for the reasons best known to the authorities. Learned Counsel for the applicants has strenuously tried to impress the Court by submitting that the applicants were given temporary status long back in the year 2007 and they have been working in the department since 1989 till now. He has further contended that they would retire after a few years of service, whereafter they would get nothing and this would be an injustice on the part of the respondent authorities, therefore, appropriate direction be given to the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants as per rules.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Scheme for absorption of Casual Workers was framed by the department in accordance with Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
6 O.A. 350/1483/2018 order/direction of Hon'ble Apex Court and is known as "Casual Workers' Absorption Scheme of CSIR, 1995". As per the respondents, it was a one-time measure applicable to the workers engaged on casual basis subject to 6fulfillment of certain conditions. They have further stated that the application of the applicant for regularization was under consideration. So far as the medical facilities are concerned, the respondents have stated that there is no provision for grant of medical facilities to a casual worker in CSIR, therefore, the applicant could not be granted the same. The respondents have further submitted that the process of recruitment of Laboratory Attendant to which the applicant had applied for, was cancelled subsequently after submission of reply due to non- availability of eligible candidates, therefore, there was no question of consideration of the case of the applicant for the said post.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents further submits that an opportunity was given to the Casual Workers already working in the respondent organisation to get their service regularised by qualifying in the selection process for Lab Attendants. One of the applicants herein, i.e. Rintu Bhattacharya has been subsequently appointed on a regular post. After availing this opportunity and after participating in the selection, they do not have a vested right to regularisation of their services.
6. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the pleadings and materials available on record, we find that the applicants made representations to the authority concerned ventilating their grievances and praying for their regularization therein, but to no avail. The applicants in their representations have mentioned about the Office Memoranda dated 16.10.2014, Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
7 O.A. 350/1483/2018 and 29.01.2015 apart from the aforementioned Office Memorandam dated 26.02.2016, which were issued by the DoPT on the same issue.
7. In para 8 of the O.A filed by the applicants, they have only claimed regularisation of their services without specifically stating that they should be appointed as Lab Attendants implying that their services which they performed on a casual and temporary basis should be regularised. Respondents' attempt to link their claim to the selection for the post of Lab Attendant is therefore misplaced in as much as it goes beyond the claim of the applicants to regularisation of their services. In this O.A, we are concerned with only the regularisation of the applicants' service as Casual Worker, not necessarily through their appointment as a Lab Attendant.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in case of Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (Civil Appeal No.8157 of 2024) dated 31.01.2025 while dealing with the issue of regularization, considered the earlier judgments in Vinod Kumar and Others Etc. Vs. Union of India & Others [(2024)1 SCR 1230], Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 etc.) dated 20th December, 2024 and Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi [(2006)4 SCC 1] and opined that if an employee works continuously without any break in a temporary capacity for a long time, it means that his job is perennial in nature and such employee cannot be denied regularization under the shield of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra),which distinguishes the appointments between regular and irregular. As per the judgment of Shripal (supra), irregular appointees are eligible for regularization if they fulfill certain conditions.
9. In this respect, it would be pertinent to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. 350/1483/2018 Others (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024 etc.) dated 20th December, 2024, which reads as under:-
"22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
25.It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels:Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,"even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination:Temporary dismissed employees are frequently without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
•Lack of Career Progression:Temporaryemployees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
•Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. 350/1483/2018
10. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it transpires that the applicants have been working in the department since 1989. The respondents had granted them temporary status vide Order dated 03.08.2007 (Annexure A/13 to the O.A.) which was later confirmed vide Order dated 29.08.2007 (Annexure A/14 to the O.A.) Their pay had been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.4440-7440/- vide Office Memorandum dated 29.10.2008 (Annexure A/15 to the O.A.). The applicants were also recommended for Multi-Skilled Training Programme, which was fixed on 13.08.2012 and 14.08.2012 for consideration of their case against a permanent post of Multi-Designated Staff vide Office Memorandum dated 02.08.2012 (Annexure A/16 to the O.A.). Thereafter their pay was revised to Rs.5200-20200/-
with Grade Pay of Rs.1800/- as per VIth Central Pay Commission's recommendation, vide Memorandum dated 21.08.2012 (Annexure A/17 to the O.A.). All these actions on the part of the department make it amply clear that the applicants in this O.A. are performing perennial nature of duty against sanctioned posts.
11. It is also noted that the respondents in the present O.A. had mentioned in their Order dated 03.08.2007 (Annexure A/13) as follows:-
"In compliance with the Hon'ble CAT Order No.OA 60 of 2007, dated 5-4-2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred upon me vide CSIR letter No.36-16(26)/2007- Law, dated 12-7-2007 and subsequent letter of even number, dated 31-7-2007, considering the de-facto approval for empanelment as identified casual workers vide CSIR letters No.3(24)/93-E-II dated 27-12-1999 and 14-7-2000, CSIO, Chandigarh letter No.CSIO/2(193)98 Rectt. dated March 1, 2000 and CIMAP letter No.2/374/99- MP(Admn.), dated 31-8-2000, I hereby confer temporary status to Shri Lalu Sardar.
Shri Sardar is eligible for wage at daily rates with reference to the minimum pay scale for corresponding regular lowest Gr.D official and other benefits under terms and conditions laid down in the CSIR Temporary Status Scheme." Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A. 350/1483/2018
12. In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [(2025)Live Law SC 153], the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated misuse of "Temporary" labels and opined that "the employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks."
13. In a recent judgment dated 04.02.2025, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Puducherry & Another Vs. K. Velajagan & Others [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.2868/2018] has dealt with a similar issue of regularization of Lecturers in Polytechnic College and has opined inter alia as under:-
"9. Be that as it may, neither the said 15 incumbent lecturers nor the respondents should suffer because of the internal squabble between the petitioners and the UPSC. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi(3) [(2006)4 SCC 1], as held in a recent decision of this Court in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [(2025)Live Law SC 153] cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate recruitment process to deny relief of regularization.
10. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, meaning thereby that the claims of respondents 1 to 3 for regularization are required to be considered in the light of the decision given by the Tribunal, since affirmed by the High Court..........."
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as quoted supra, we are of the opinion that it would be utter travesty of justice if the applicants are not regularized even after working in the department for almost 36 years (approximately 18 years after grant of temporary status. Therefore, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the applicants with effect from 27.12.1999 since de-facto approval Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O.A. 350/1483/2018 as identified Casual Workers was given by the competent authority with effect from the said date and the applicants were granted temporary status w.e.f. 03.08.2007 as per the said letter and also the subsequent letters dated 14.07.2000, 01.03.2000 and 31.08.2000. It is further directed that the respondents shall regularize the services of the applicant with due consideration of the fact that they have been performing perennial nature of duties against sanctioned posts for a long time and also completed required training programme successfully, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. With the above observations and directions, the O.A. stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen))
Member (A) Member (J)
DB
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Dhrubajyoti banerjee Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN= Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.04.01 15:35:23+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0