Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shiv Mangal Singh vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited on 7 April, 2025
Item No. 26 (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022
2
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2322/202
/2022
Reserved on: 28.03.2025
Pronounced on: 07.04.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Shiv Mangal Singh, Aged-64
Aged 64 Years,
S/o Sh. J. Prashad Retired SDE (Telecom)
from MTNL, New Delhi Residence of House
No.314A, Durga Vihar, Phase-I,
Phase I, DindarPur,
Najafgarh, New Delhi. 110043.
110043
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma
Sharma)
Versus
1. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL)
Through its Chief Managing Director,
MahanagarDoorsanchar Sadan, 9, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 110003
2. The General Manager (A), Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), K.L. Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi. 110001
3.The Executive Director, Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Limited (MTNL) East Code, Janpath, New
Delhi
Delhi-110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Rahul Singhal)
Page 1 of 15
Item No. 26 (Court
(Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-
(J):
In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
"(i)
(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure A/1) and all the DPC proceedings in which the applicant was considered for his financial upgradation in IDA scale E-3 E to E-4 4 and declared unfit only in respect of the applicant declaring to theeffect the same is illegal and arbitrary and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to conduct a review DPC/fresh /fresh DPC to consider the case of the applicant for his financial upgradation in IDA scale E-3E to E-4 4 from due date i.e. with effect from 18.12.2009 on the basis of policy applicable at that time.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased tto pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for granting financial upgradation under IDA scale E-4 E to E--5 after completion of five year of service from the date of granting E-5 E 5 financial upgradation with all consequentia consequentiall benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances and revision of retirement benefits.
(iii)
ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.
litigation."
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant herein has challenged the order dated 27.10.2021, (Annexure A A-1),
1), which reads as under:
"Sub:-Discrepancy Discrepancy of DPC in promotion from E-3 E to E-4 & E-4 to E-5.
Kindly refer to your representation dated 13/09/2021 on the above cited subject. In this context, it is intimated that this office already considered your case 07 times. But, due to below bench mark grading in ACP You was declare "UNFIT" by DPC.Page 2 of 15
Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 Hence your representation has been rejected by Competent Authority.
Authority."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn our attention to the averments contained in the counter affidavit highlighting para 3 & 4 of the same, which read as under:
"3. It is submitted that the benchmark criterion for financial upgradation were revised vide MTNL corporate office Memorandum No. 'MTNL/CO/pers/GRp,B, PROMOTION POLICY/|(133)12010132 dated 08.03.201 1. As per the clause 4 of the said OM, it is clearly mentioned that 'these amendments am shall come into force w.e.f. the date of approval by the Board i.e. 22.12.2010 and the revised benchmark shall be considered in all DPC's for the Post Based/ Financial upgradation promotions from the date of approval by the Board i.e. )Z.l2.ZOlO )Z.l2.ZOlO-, The copy of the said OM dated 08.03.2011 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R-2. R 2. The revised benchmark is stated herein for kind reference of this Hon'ble Tribunal:
S.No For Up-gradation
Up Category Pre-Revised
Revised Revised grading
Grading Criteria criteria as
approved in the
267th BODM held
on 22.12.2010
From Scale A From
Scale B
3. 24900
24900-50500 29100- OC No Adverse, not No adverse, no
E-3 54500 E- more than two average
4 averages Benchmark Four
Very Good
SC/ST No Adverse, not No adverse, no
more than three average
averages Benchmark
Three VeryGood
4. 29100
29100-54500 32900- OC No Adverse, not No adverse, no
E-4 58000 E- more than two average
5 averages Benchmark Four
Very Good
SC/ST No Adverse, not No adverse, no
more than three average
averages Benchmark
Three Very Good
4. That the applicant was due for consideration for next financial upgradation i.e. EE-3 to E-44 w.e.f. 11.11.2009 as per Executive Promotion Policy for which the DPC was held on 20.05.2011 wherein the ACR's for the preceding five years incl including uding the ACR of the applicant were called for consideration i.e. from 2004 to 2009. DPC considered the then applicable benchmark criteria issued vide OM dated 08.03.2011 which was effective from 22.12.2010. As the ACR did not qualify the benchmark criteri criteria as per the Page 3 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 applicable policy, and hence, the applicant was declared UNFIT" by DPC for financial upgradation from E-3 E to E-4. 4. The copy of the synopsis for DPC of Financial Upgradation from the grade of E-3E 3 to E E-4 under EPP is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R.3."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was due for financial upgradation, i.e., E-3 E to E-4, 4, w.e.f. 11.11.2009. As on the said date the Benchmark for consideration was 'Good'. Later on, the respondents have revised the promotion policy where the benchmark criterion for financial upgradation were revised vide MTNL corporate office Memorandum dated 08.03.2011 and ass per the 'clause 4' of the said OM, the amendments have been been taken retrospe retrospective effect on 22.12.2010 revising the Benchmark as 'Very Good'. He further stated that the applicant cannot be penalized for not holding the DPC within the stipulated time period. He submitted that the applicant has already superannuated on 31.07.2018. He further submitted that in the present matter, the DPC was held on 20.05.2011.
5. Opposing the grant of relief, llearned earned counsel for the respondents relies upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He submitted that while the policy was revis revised, ed, sufficient opportunity was given to the applicant for upgradation of his APAR/ACRS. It has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant was not given financial upgradation from IDA scale E E-3 3 to E E-4 on basis of his below Page 4 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 benchmark grading. However, as per the applicable O OM's, the concerned unit of the respondent espondent were directed to provide the copies of the ACR's having below benchmark grading to the concerned officers (including the applicant herein) to seek their representation (if any), vide letter dated 27.06.2011. For the sake of better appreciation, tthe letter dated 27.06.2011 is reproduced herein below:
"Sub: Forwarding of copies of below benchmark grading in the ACRs of following officers working under GM (West.).
As per the instructions contained in the DoPT letter no. no.- 21011/1/2010 21011/1/2010-Estt. A dated 13-04-2010 2010 kindly find herewith the copies of ACRs (below bench mark grading) of the following officer considered for financial up gradation to E-4 E 4 grade by DSC in its meeting held on 21 21-05-2011.
The grading of ACRs of the period as mentioned below are found fou below bench mark as per the CO letter No. No.-MTNL/CO/Pers./GRP MTNL/CO/Pers./GRP B' PROMOTION POLICY/1(133) 2010/32 dated 08 08-03-2011.
2011. These copies of ACRs may be forwarded to concerned officer to submit his representation, if any, within 15 days of such communication.
S.No. Name Staff No. Unit ACRs-Below Below Benchmark
1. Shiv Mangal JE-4151 West 01.04.2005 to 23.07.2005, 24.07.2005 to Singh 31.03.2006, 2006 2006-07, 2007-08, & 2008-09.
2. Sunil Kr. JE-4662 -do- 01.04.2005 to 02.06.2005, 03.06.2005 to Yadav 24.10.2005, 25.10.2005 25.10.20 to 31.03.2006, 01.04.2009 to 22.10.2009 & 22.10.2009 to 31.03.2010 After obtaining comments of Reporting and Reviewing authority, Accepting Authority may decide the case for up gradation of the entries or otherwise. The decision of the accepting authority may be forwarded to this office for taking further necessary action. Compliance report in this regards may be sent urgently within one month of the issued of letter.
This is issued with the approval of competent authority"
6. Learned counsel for the respondents dents further submitted that the applicant was provided a fair opportunity to represent against the below benchmark grading, which the applicant had availed. He further Page 5 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 submitted that tthe he Accepting Authority passed its decision vide office Order dated 18.07.2012 wherein it was observed that since the reporting and reviewing authorities had retired for the ACR period from 01.04.2005 to 23.07.2005 and 2006-2007, 2006 2007, hence their views could not be obtained. Further, the reporting authority for the period 2007-2008 2007 and 2008-2009 had intimated their decision of not to upgrade the ACR of the applicant from "Good" to "Very Good". He submitted that that the aforesaid view of the Reporting Authority was endorsed by the Reviewing Authority. On the basis of the contents of the representation and the views of the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities, the Accepting Authority decided not to upgrade the grading of the applicant from "Good" to "Very Good"
for theperiod 01.04.2005 to 23.07.2005, 24.07.2005 to 31.03.2006, 31.03 2006- 2007, 2007-2008 2008 and 2008-2009 2008 2009 and the original grading without any change was to be considered for all practical purposes. The said decision dated 18.07.2012 was also communicated to the applicant. For the sake of better appreciation, the order dated 18.07.2012 is reproduced herein below:
"In In accordance with the instructions contained in DOPT No. 21011/1/2010 21011/1/2010-Estt.
Estt. A dated 13.4.2010 the undersigned being the accepting authority in the case of Sh. S.M. Singh (GO-20054151) (GO 20054151) had called the views of the reporting / reviewing officers on the representation of the officer. The ACR for the periods 1.4.2005 to 23.7.2005 and 2006-2007 2006 both the reporting and reviewing officers retired. The ACR for the period 20072007-2008 & 2008-2009 the reporting authority Sh. Ashok Kumar, and Sh. R.S. Ram respectively decided not to consider the case to upup-grade grade the ACR from "Good" to "Very Page 6 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 Good". The reviewing authority Sh. R.L. Bharti also decided not to up grade the APAR/ACR for the above mentioned periods. After taking int into account, the contents of the representation and views of Reviewing Officer(s), I Kamlesh Kumar the Accepting Authority in this case decided not to upgrade the grading from "Good" to "Very Good" for the period 1.4.2005 to 23.7.2005, 24.7.2005 to 31.3.200 31.3.2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 2008 and 2008-2009.2008
Henceforth the original grading without any change shall be considered for all practical purposes.
purposes."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant was promoted in the grade of SDE(Telecom) w.e.f. 18.12.2004 on regular basis vide letter no. STA STA-1/1--2/TFR/2005/11/75 dated 16.09.2006. It has been further stated that the 1stfinancial upgradation from E-2 to E-3 3 was given to the applicant w.e.f. 11.11.2004 under the Executive Promotion Policy, 2007 vide order No. STAI/Exec. Prom. Policy/E-2 to E--3/2007-08/Part file-1/4 1/4 dated 26.04.2008. Subsequently, the applicant was considered for financial upgradation from E E-3 to E-4 w.e.f. 11.11.2009 but he was declared "UNFI "UNFIT"
T" by the DPC, as his ACRs did nott fulfil the applicable benchmark criteria. Since the applicant was not fit for financial upgradation from E E-3 to E-4, 4, there is no basis for him to claim for consideration of subsequent financial upgradation from E E-4 to E-5. He further submitted that tthe applicant pplicant was never considered by the Respondent for financial upgradation from E E-3 to E-4 pay scale. He submitted that the case of the applicant was duly considered by the Respondent, however, due to below benchmark grading in his ACR, he was declared "UNF "UNFIT" by the DPC. The applicant pplicant was intimated by the Page 7 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 Accepting Authority of its decision of "not to upgrade the APAR" vide Office Order No. GM (West)/CR/2011/ dated 18.07.2012 on his representation to upgrade the below benchmark APAR. Further, his letters received ceived on dated 14.09.2021 and 31.05.2022 were replied vide letter no. STA-I/Exec.Prom.Policy/E-3 STA 3 to E E-4/2016-17/147 dated 27.10.2021 and letter 1/Exec.Prom.Policy/t:-3 1/Exec.Prom.Policy/t: 3 to no. STA STA-E-4/2016- 17/149 dated 07.06.2022 respectively.
8. In rejoinder to the arguments arguments put forth by the respondents' counsel, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the year 2009 when the Benchmark was good, the applicant was fulfilling all eligibility criteria for upgradation.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.3001/2013 dated 08.05.2013 in the case of Vinod Pal Singh vs. MTNL & Ors.
10. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
11. ANALYSIS 11.1 The issue to be addressed in present OA is the cut off date or date of consideration, whether the revised policy /revised grading criteria Page 8 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 could have been applied to deny financial upgradation from E E-3 to E-4 Scale? In alternative, whether revised policy /revised ggrading criteria could have been applied, retrospectively to deny financial up up-gradation from E-3 to E-4 4 Scale in the case of the applicant? 11.2 It is not in dispute that applicant was due for his financial up up-
gradation from 18.12.2009. In terms of promotion policy dated 11.9.2007, grading criteria, i.e., "GOOD"
GOOD" was the bench mark for financial up up-
gradation from E E-3 to E-4 4 Scale. The revised policy poli was brought in place on 8.3.2011 with retrospective effect, wherein grading criteria, i.e., "GOOD" was enhanced to " Very Good" for financial up-gradation up from E-3 to E-4 4 Scale. The 'Eligibility' and 'Upgradation criteria' as per promotion policy dated 11.9.2007, are as follows:
"(b) Eligibility:
1. Due Date: The date on which the Executives fulfills the Qualifying Service Conditions for Upgradation to next higher IDA Pay Scale as defined in sub Para 3 below.
2. Review Date: As on October 1st of each year with the first review under the policy with reference to October 1st, 2004.
3. Qualifying Service Conditions:
3.1 FIRST Upgradation: The FIRST UPGRADATION of IDA Scale of individual Executive will be due for consideration on completion of 4 (Four) yeyears ars of Service in the current IDA Scale subject to the condition that the Executive's basic pay in the current IDA Scale has crossed / touched the lowest of the higher IDA scale for which his/her Upgradation is to be considered OR he/she has completed 5 (S (Six) years of service in the current IDA Scale, whichever is earlier. In cases where Executives have been appointed as Officer Trainee (JAO/JTO/MT), the eligibility for first upgradation shall be 4 (Four) years after successful completion of one year traini training during which stipend has been paid to the Executives. This training period shall also be counted for calculating the eligibility period for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) under Recruitment rules.Page 9 of 15
Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 3.2 SUBSEQUENT Upgradation: The subs subsequent Upgradation of IDA Scale to the next higher IDA scale will be due on completion of 5 (Five) years of service in the current IDA Scale.
4. The qualifying service conditions Indicated in Sub Para 3 above will only enable the Executive for "consideration"
"considerat for Upgradation to next higher IDA Scale. Completion of such period alone shall not entitle any Executive for automatic Upgradation to the next higher IDA Scale.
5. The service rendered by any Executive in existing IDA Pay Scale in MTNL will only be counted counted for Upgradation to next higher IDA Scale. However, for First Upgradation, Qualifying Service shall be calculated. as per Clause I (b)(3.1) above. C. Upgradation criteria:
1. Review: The review for all Executives meeting the Qualifying Service Condit Conditions ions of Sub Para (b)(3) above will be done every year with reference to Review date, i.e., on 1st October. On being found fit, the IDA Scale Upgradation will be effective from the due date.
2. The fitness for IDA pay scale Upgradation to the next higher. IIDA-
Scale of the eligible executives will be judged by prescribed Screening Committee on the basis of performance rating of ACRs, as per details given in sub Para 3 below, subject to necessary disciplinary / vigilance clearance and no punishment is current.
3. Performance Ratings in ACRS: The ACRs of the previous 5 (five) years shall be taken into consideration, for assessing fitness of eligible Executives of various grades on the basis of following fitness criteria:
Sl. For Upgradation of Scale Category Grading Criteria No. From (Rs.) To (Rs.)
1. 8600-14600 10750-16750 OC No adverse, not more than (E-1) (E-2) four Averages.
SC/ST No adverse.
2. 10750- 13000-18250 OC No adverse, not more than
16750 (E-3) four Averages.
(E-2) SC/ST No adverse.
3. 13000- 14500-18700 OC No adverse, not more than
18250 (E-4) two Averages.
(E-3) SC/ST No adverse, not more than
three Averages.
4. 14500- 16000-20800 OC No adverse, not more than
18700 (E-5) two Averages.
(E-4) SC/ST No adverse, nor more than
three Average.
5. 16000- 17500-22300 OC No adverse, not more than
20800 (E-6) one Average
(E-5) SC/ST No adverse, nor more than
two Average
6. 17500- 18500-23900 OC No adverse, not more than
22300 (E-7) one Average
(E-6) SC/ST No adverse, not more than
two Averages.
4. Sealed cover proceedings, wherever applicable, shall remain vogue as per Standing Instructions."Page 10 of 15
Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 11.3 An office Memorandum dated 8.3.2011 was issued which came into effect retrospectively w.e.f 22.12.2010 as has been amended by the Board of Directors' of MTNL in the 267th meeting held on 22.12.2010 as follows:
"1. Clause I (Time Bound IDA Scale Up-gradation Up gradation Policy), Sub-Clause Sub c (Upgradation Criteria), Sub Sub Sub-Clause Clause 3 (Performance Rating in ACRs) shall be read as:
Thee ACRs of the previous 5 (Five) years shall be taken into consideration, for assessing fitness of eligible Executives of various grades on the basis of following fitness criteria:
Sl. For Upgradation Category Pre-revised
Pre Revised
No. From To Scale Grading Criteria Grading
Scale A B Criteria as
approved in the
267th BODM
held on
22.12.2010
1. 16400- 20600- OC No Adverse, not No Adverse, no
40500 46500 more than four Average
E-1 E-2 Averages. benchmark:
Four Very
Good
SC/ST No Adverse No Adverse, no
Average
Benchmark:
Three Very
Good
2. 20600- 24900- OC No Adverse not No Adverse, no
46500 50500 more than four Average
E-2 E-3 Averages. benchmark:
Four Very
Good
SC/ST No Adverse No Adverse, no
Average
benchmark:
Three very
Good
3. 24900- 29100- OC No Adverse, not No Adverse, no
50500 54500 more than two Average
E-3 E-4 Averages Benchmark
Four Very
Good
SC/ST No Adverse, not No Adverse, no
more than three Average
Averages. Benchmark
Three Very
Good
Page 11 of 15
Item No. 26 (Court
(Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022
3. Clause 4, As below, is added to the policy:
The Promotion Policy shall be reviewed after every 5 years. However, the Management may review the eligibility criteria after 3 years.
4. Other Terms and Conditions of the Time Bound/Post Based Promotion Policy for Executives of MTNL shall remain unchanged."
11.4 The applicant was issued certificate of fitness dated 25/8/2010, reads as under:
"With reference to Letter no.STA no.STA-1/Exec.Prom.Policy/E 1/Exec.Prom.Policy/E-3 to E-4/2008-09/24 dtd.21/4/2010, it is certified that there is no vigilance/disciplinary case is pending/contemplated ding/contemplated against the Officer Sh. S.M. Singh, SDE (GO (GO-20054151) JKP. His case is recommended for DPC & the officer is fit for higher promotion to the grade of EE-3 to E-4."
11.5 The "Review Date" as per policy dated 11.9.2007 is a "crucial date "for or determining the qualifying service as well as fitness criteria was as on Ist October of th thee each year. On being found fit fit, the IDA Scale up-
gradation will be effective from the due date. There is nothing on record to establish on record whether due pro process cess was followed while revising the fitness criteria/bench mark in form of notices/representation(s) inviting the objections from employees while decision was taken by the Board as on 22.12.2010 or issuing Office Memorandum dated 8.3.20 8.3.2011 to apply the revision vision policy, policy retrospectively, to their detriment. This is a simple answer in affirmative to the question posed before us which is not being dealt in greater detail in light of peculiar facts of the present case. 11.6. In present case, the applicant was issued certificate of fitness as on 25.8.2009. The applicant was eligible as on due date, date i.e., 18.12.2009. In Page 12 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 terms of promotion policy dated 11.09.2007,
11. 9.2007, grading criteria, criteria i.e., "GOOD"
GOOD" was the bench mark for financial up-gradation up gradation from E E-3 to E-4 Scale .The "Review Date" as per policy dated 11.
11.09.2007 is a "crucial date "for for determining the qualifying service as well as fitness criteria was as on Ist October of th thee each year. On being found fit fit, the IDA Scale up-
gradation will be effective from the due ddate ate, i.e., on due date, i.e., 18.12.2009. The applicant was very much eligible for consideration of his case under old policy dated 11.09.2007 which came into effect only on 22.12.2010 in the event the submissions of the respondents are to be accepted.
11.7 We also lso take note of the fact that it it is relevant to mention here that the applicant was due for his financial up up-gradation gradation from 18.12.2009 and at that time the promotion policy dated 11.09.2007 was applicable and only from 08.03.2011 the revised polic policyy /revised grading criteria has been implemented as per the policy dated 11.09.2007 for upgradation from E E-3 to E-4 4 the grading criteria was "No adverse, not more than two average"
were required. It is relevant to mention here that during the relevant period od upto the 2019 there was no average grading of the applicant and the applicant was having good grading in the ACR and therefore, there is no reason and justification to deny the financial up-gradation up from E-3 scale to E-44 scale w.e.f. 14.12.2009. It is submitted that the action of the Page 13 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 respondents applying the revised policy dated 08.03.2011 retrospectively is illegal in the eyes of law. As per the revised policy for the scale for E E-4 to E-5
5 the bench mark is very good for four years. It is also relevant to mention here that the applicant is having either outstanding or very good grading after 2010 in every year from 2009 2009-10 10 till 2014 2014-15 and therefore, the whole action of the respondents not granting the financial up up-
gradation to the applicant by the impug impugned ned order only by applying the revised policy from retrospective date is totally illegal, arbitrary and against the law of the land.
11.8 The DPC could not have denied the claim of the applicant due to bench mark below grading in ACR based on the new revised revi criteria w.e.f 22.10.2010 in applicable in case of the applicant as he was very much eligible gible in terms of "Review Date" i.e., 1st Oct and "Due date" i.e i.e., 18.12.2009 in consonance with certificate issued on 25.8.2010, which was much prior to date of ap applicability plicability of revised policy. We also take notice of the fact that other terms and conditions other than what have been revised have not been changed in terms of clause 44, i.e., Review Date" i.e.,., 1st Oct and "Due date".
12. CONCLUSION 12.1 In view of the above discussions, the action of the respondents is rescinded. The respondent are directed to convene a review screening Page 14 of 15 Item No. 26 (Court (Court-V) O.A. No.2322/2022 committee to assess the applicant for financial up up-gradation from E-3 to E-4 4 which shall be accorded to him, if otherwi otherwise he is fulfilling other eligibility conditions in terms terms of policy dated 11.09.2007 and carry out necessary consequential order(s) qua pay fixation/ arrears within period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. All pending applications are also disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sb/
Page 15 of 15