Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Jacob Thomas P vs P. Sathikjmarana Nair (1997) on 1 November, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No.155 /2010
Thursday, this the 1st day of November, 2012.
CORAM
HON'BLE Dr K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms. K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Jacob Thomas P, S/o P.C. Chacko,
Lecturer in Chemistry,
Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School,
Androth, U.T of Lakshadweep.
2. George A.O., S/o Ouseph,
Lecturer in Commerce,
Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School,
Androth, U.T of Lakshadweep.
3. P.I.Muhammed Iqbal, S/o Sayed Koya,
Lecturer in Zoology,
Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School,
Androth, U.T of Lakshadweep.
4. Dr.Johny Thomas, S/o late Mathen Thomas,
Lecturer in Botany,
Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School,
Androth, U.T of Lakshadweep.
5. Saju Thomas, S/o late Thomas,
Lecturer in Mathematics,
Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School,
Androth, U.T of Lakshadweep.
6. P.P.Chandrasekaran, S/o late Appakunhi,
Lecturer in Hindi,
Mahatma Gandhi Senior Secondary School,
Androth, U.T of Lakshadweep.
7. Asarpal Singh, S/o Jagath Singh,
Lecturer in History,
Jawaharlal Nehru Senior Secondary School,
Kadamath, U.T of Lakshadweep.
8. G.K.Mohammed, S/o late Ibrahim,
Lecturer in Economics,
Jawaharlal Nehru Senior Secondary School,
Kadamath, U.T of Lakshadweep.
9. Ravindranathan E, S/o Vasudevan Nair,
Lecturer in Commerce,
Jawaharlal Nehru Senior Secondary School,
Kadamath, U.T of Lakshadweep.
10. C.Rajendran, S/o Chokkanathan,
Lecturer in Mathematics,
Jawaharlal Nehru Senior Secondary School,
Kadamath, U.T of Lakshadweep.
11. M.C.Mohammed, S/o Khader,
Lecturer in Hindi,
Jawaharlal Nehru Senior Secondary School,
Kadamath, U.T of Lakshadweep.
12. Khalelulla Polakkadam, S/o Syed Bukari,
Lecturer in Zoology,
Jawaharlal Nehru Senior Secondary School,
Kadamath, U.T of Lakshadweep.
13. P.S.Attakoya, S/o Kasim Uthiliyoda,
Lecturer in English,
Jawaharlal Nehru Senior Secondary School,
Kadamath, U.T of Lakshadweep.
14. Tom Mathew T, S/o Mathew,
Lecturer in Physical Education,
Jawaharlal Nehru Senior Secondary School,
Kadamath, U.T of Lakshadweep. - Applicants
(By Advocate Mr T.A.Rajan)
v.
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development
Department of Secondary and Higher Education,
Ground Floor, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi.
2. The Administrator,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti.
3. The Director of Education,
U.T of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr A.D.Raveendra Prasad, ACGSC for R.1)
(By Advocate Mr S Radhakrishnan for R.2 & 3)
This application having been finally heard on 29.10.2012, the Tribunal on
01.11.2012 delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE Dr K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicants in this OA were earlier serving as Lecturers in the Mahatma Gandhi College Androth/Jawaharlal Nehru College, Kadmat in the Lakshadweep Islands. Their initial appointment dates back to the period ranging from 1979 to 1996. On the abolition of the posts of Lecturers consequent on introduction of senior secondary system in the schools, the applicants were inducted into various schools but their designations remained as Lecturers only. When the respondents attempted to bring down the pay scale of the erstwhile Lecturers of the colleges from Rs 400 - 800 to Rs 350 - 700 (which is the scale of the PGT in the Senior Secondary Schools), certain similarly situated individuals claimed the original pay scales comparable to the entry grade of group A officers through a Civil Writ Petition before the Kerala High Court. A single judge of the Kerala High Court having allowed the petition the respondents moved the matter before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which had also upheld the decision of the Single Bench. Consequently the respondents took up the matter before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in its judgment vide Union of India versus P. Sathikjmarana Nair (1997) 10 SCC 663 held as under :-
"The civil appeal is filed by the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of India and the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti. There are four respondents in the said appeal and they were writ petitioners in OP No. 2062 of 1980(A) filed before the Kerala High Court. They claimed that the proceedings issued by the Administrator dated 1-4-1976 redesignating them as junior lecturers against their original designation as lecturers in the Jawaharlal Nehru College at Kavaratti was illegal and that they were entitled to the scale of Rs 400-800 applicable to lecturers rather than the scale of Rs 350-700 which was applicable to junior lecturers and which scale was applicable to the postgraduate teachers in the Secondary High School. It may be noted that the scale of Rs 350-700 was revised by the Third Pay Commission as Rs 550-900 w.e.f. 1-1-1973 while the scale of Rs 400-800 was revised as Rs 700-1300 w.e.f. 1-1-1973. The said OP No. 2062 of 1980(A) filed by the said four writ petitioners was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on 10-8-1982 holding that the petitioners therein could not be equated with postgraduate teachers in the Secondary High School (who were to be redesignated as junior lecturers) and that they were entitled to the scale of Rs 400- 800 applicable to lecturers. After holding so, the learned Single Judge, however, directed the Union of India to "consider" the claims of the four writ petitioners in regard to the pay scales in accordance with law. Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal No. 736 of 1982 was preferred by the Union of India and the Administrator of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 17-8-1984. It was directed that the Union of India should take a decision on a consideration of the material before it, in the light of the directions contained in the judgment in OP No. 2062 of 1980(A) and that the said decision should be given within six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment. Against the said judgment of the Division Bench, special leave petition was preferred by the Union of India and the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Leave was granted and the appeal has been registered as Civil Appeal No. 913 of 1987.
2. Certain events took place subsequent to the disposal of the above-mentioned writ appeal. In compliance with the directions of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, the Union of India passed orders on 11-8-1986 rejecting the contentions of the said writ petitioners and holding that they were only entitled to the pay scale of Rs 350-700 (which was revised as Rs 550-900 w.e.f. 1-1-1973) applicable to postgraduate teachers and not to the pay scale of Rs 400-800 applicable to lecturers (revised as Rs 700- 1300 w.e.f. 1-1-1973). The Union Government held that the duties and responsibilities of the writ petitioners are comparable with those of counterparts in Classes XI and XII of the Senior Secondary School and that they could not be equated with the duties and responsibilities of lecturers working in the degree colleges run by the Union Government.
3. On the ground that Union of India in its order dated 11-8- 1986 could not have gone against the findings given by the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in OP No. 2062 of 1980(A) and by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 736 of 1982 as to the equation of the duties and responsibilities of the writ petitioners, namely, that they were similar to those of lecturers in degree colleges, Contempt Petition No. O.P. (Contempt) No. 3730 of 1986 was filed by the said writ petitioners in the Kerala High Court. By judgment dated 29-9-1986 a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court while noting that the special leave petition was granted against the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 736 of 1982 observed inasmuch as no stay was granted by the Supreme Court of India, it was incumbent on the Union of India to implement the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the light of the findings given by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and that it was not open to the Union of India to pass the orders dated 11-8- 1986 refusing to restore the designation of the writ petitioners as lecturers and that it was also not open to the Union of India to refuse to grant the scale of Rs 400-800.
4. Consequent to the directions given in the abovesaid contempt petition by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, the Union of India passed a subsequent order dated 24-12-1986 redesignating the writ petitioners as lecturers and granting the scale of Rs 400-800 w.e.f. 15-7-1972 (the date of establishment of the Junior College at Kavaratti) and the further revised scale of Rs 700-1300 w.e.f. 1-1-1973. A consequential order was issued by the Administrator on 10- 2-1987. The four writ petitioners apprehended that in the event of the civil appeal being allowed by the Supreme Court, they might be compelled to refund the arrears as well as the current salary that might be paid to them in the scale of Rs 400-800 or the revised scale of Rs 700-1300 (or such subsequent revised scale), as the case may be. They, therefore, moved this Court in the civil appeal for suitable orders. This Court passed an order on 2-4-1987 after hearing both sides that in the event of the civil appeal going against writ petitioners, it would not be necessary for them to refund any salary paid to them in the scale of Rs 400-800 or in the revised scale of Rs 700-1300 or any further revised scale.
x x x x x x
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides. We have come to the conclusion that in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India we would not interfere with the findings given in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in OP No. 2062 of 1980(A) dated 10-8- 1982 as affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 736 of 1982 dated 17-8-1984. We note that in the said judgments it was stated that the Union of India in its counter- affidavit filed in the Kerala High Court did not take the stand that the "nature, status or functions" attributable to the post of junior lecturer in the pre-degree colleges were different from those of lecturer in a degree college. We also note that against the other judgment of the Kerala High Court in OP No. 497 of 1980 (referred to in the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and which was affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 772 of 1982), no special leave petition has been filed by the Union of India in this Court. In the said judgment of the Kerala High Court also there is a finding that there was nothing on record to indicate that these persons (junior lecturers in pre-degree colleges) did not perform similar functions as compared to lecturers working in degree colleges in the Delhi area. That finding has become final. It is also not disputed before us that in the Calicut University to which these two colleges in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep are affiliated, the pay scales of junior lecturers teaching pre-degree classes and the pay scale of lecturers teaching degree classes is one and the same. In this connection, we may also refer to the order of the Government of Kerala in GOMs 487/70/Edn. (F) Deptt. dated 21-11-1970 equalizing the pay scales of junior lecturers in private aided colleges with those of lecturers in government colleges. In government colleges in Kerala the pay scale of junior lecturers teaching pre-degree classes and lecturers teaching degree classes is again one and the same. In other words, speaking from a geographical angle the pay scales of junior lecturers and lecturers are the same in Kerala and in the Calicut University, with the sole exception of these two colleges in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep which are also affiliated to the Calicut University. In the light of the above factual position, we are of the view that, in exercise of our discretion, we would not interfere with the findings arrived at in OP No. 2062 of 1980(A) by the Kerala High Court as affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 736 of 1982 holding that the pay scales of the junior lecturers in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep are to be on a par with the pay scales of lecturers in degree colleges under the Union of India.
10. In addition, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners to a recent communication of the Administrator of Union Territory of Lakshadweep dated 3-2-1995 wherein he has recommended to the Government of India that the junior lecturers in these two colleges in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep be paid the same scale of pay as lecturers in the colleges of the Union Territory and he has stated that the additional financial burden would be around thirty thousand per year which could be borne by the Union Territory. He has also stated that there are only 34 lecturers who have to be given this scale attributable to the post of lecturers in degree colleges, the present revised scale being Rs 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1-1-1986. In view of these facts, we do not deem it proper to interfere with the scale of Rs 400-800 as being payable to these junior lecturers w.e.f. 15-7-1972 and Rs 700-1300 w.e.f. 1-1-1973 and Rs 2200- 4000 w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The said pay scale will be applicable to these junior lecturers now designated as lecturers from their respective dates of appointment in the respective junior colleges in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. The civil appeal is dismissed.
11. In view of our decision in the civil appeal, the consequence must necessarily be that the 14 petitioners who have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. K-274 of 1987 must also be treated likewise as the writ petitioners, respondents in CA No. 913 of 1987. Therefore, civil appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 648 of 1990 and 6894 of 1994 are also allowed granting the appellant therein the same relief, as to pay scales above mentioned. Coming to Writ Petition (C) No. 277 of 1994 the six writ petitioners therein are in identical situation and are also entitled to the same treatment as the writ petitioners whose cases have been decided in CA No. 913 of 1987. Otherwise, it would be discriminatory. We hold that they are also entitled to the same pay scale of lecturers referred to above.
12. In the result CA No. 913 of 1987 is dismissed. Civil appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 6498 of 1990 and 6894 of 1994 are allowed. Writ Petition No. 277 of 1994 is also allowed in the manner mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs. We should not be understood as having decided any of the issues of law raised by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides."
2. As the above decision was sought to be implemented by the respondents confining the benefit of the judgment only to the petitioners therein, certain others similarly situated including some of the applicants here had moved the matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1157 of 1997 and the Tribunal allowed the same. The respondents, vide Annexure A-3, thereafter extended the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court to all and granted the same pay scale as others in the above case. Thus, the pay scale of Rs 400 - 800 having been granted to them, successively, the pay scale consequent on acceptance of the Pay Commission Recommendations the pay scales underwent the following revisions:-
Rs.700 - 1300 as per the III Pay Commission Recommendations, effective from 01st January, 1973.
Rs.2200 - 4000 as per the IV Pay Commission Recommendations effective from 01s January, 1986.
t
Rs.8,000 - 13500/- as per the V Pay Commission
Recommendations effective from 01st January, 1996. On 20- 04-1998, notification No. S.O. 332(E) came to be issued whereby, a Central Civil Post carrying a pay or pay scale of pay with a maximum of not less than Rs 13,500/- has been classified as Group 'A'. As the applicants were not so treated, the applicants along with certain others approached the Tribunal in OA No. 76 of 2005 challenging the non granting of Group A status to them and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 02-02- 2005 disposed of the said OA directing the 2nd respondent to conside4r and dispose of the representation and pass appropriate orders and in pursuance of the same the respondents considered and granted Group 'A' (Gazetted) status to the applicants and similarly situated. Annexure A-3 order dated 12-08-2005 refers.
3. The Sixth Pay Commission in paragraph 7.57.37 had recommended the pay scale of the erstwhile lecturers of the Junior Colleges in the Island as under:-
"7.57.37: Higher Pay Scales have been demanded for Post graduate teacher (PGTs) in Lakshadweep. The recommendations contained in Chapter 3.8 regarding common category of Teachers will apply in this case as well. It is also observed that some Lecturers in Junior Colleges which were later reclassified as Senior Secondary Schools have been continuing in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13,500 as personal to them. It is clarified that these Lecturers shall be placed in the PB3 Pay Band of Rs 15,600 - 39,100 along with Grade Pay of Rs 5,400 as personal to them. For other category of teachers, the pay scale recommended in Chapter 3.8 shall apply."
4. The Respondents not only accepted the higher pay scale of Rs 15,600 - 39,100/- but also in so far as Grade Pay is concerned, have of their own allowed higher grade pay of Rs 6,600/. Annexure A-7 refers.
5. The applicants had thus been drawing the said pay scale and grade pay w.e.f. 01-01-2006. So far so good. However, there has been certain audit objections to the effect that when the Pay Commission had recommended the Grade Pay of Rs 5400 the respondents had granted Rs 6,600/- and the same needs clarification. Annexure A-10 refers. The Lakshadweep Administration had, therefore, referred the matter to the Ministry of Home Affairs with regard to the grade pay, vide letter dated 22- 02-2010 and while giving clarification Respondent No. 1 has held that the matter has been considered in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and the pay scale should be kept only at Rs 9300 - 34800 with Grade Pay of Rs 5,400/- as purely personal to them. Annexure A-12 refers.
6. It is the above order, vide Annexure A-12, that has been under challenge along with the audit objection vide Annexue A-10 and the applicants have claimed the following reliefs:
(a) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A-10 and quash the same.
(b) Declare that the applicants are eligible and entitled to get the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- given to the analogous post.
(c) Declare that the reduction of Grade Pay of the applicant from Rs.6600 to 5400 as arbitrary and illegal.
(d) Call for the records leading to the order No.F.15-6/2006 UTI dated 21.9.2011 of the 1st respondent and quash it.
(e) Award costs of and incidental to this application.
7. The Lakshadweep Administration had almost endorsed the claim of the applicants, However, no reply has been received from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
8. Counsel for the applicant had succinctly taken the Tribunal through various orders such as the judgment of the Apex Court cited above and the Pay Commission recommendations, the views of the Union Territory and the orders under challenged and put forth the following contentions:-
(a) The Apex Court had clearly held that the pay scale of the erstwhile Junior College Lecturers shall be Rs.400 - 800 which is the pay scale of class I officers at the entry level. The government on the basis of the various pay commission recommendations correspondingly revised the pay scales of lecturers respectively to Rs 700 - 1300 in the wake of the Third Pay Commission Recommendations, Rs. 2200 - 4000/- on the basis of the fourth pay commission recommendations and Rs.8000 - 13,500 afteer the fifth pay commission recommendations. Thus parity with any group A Officers at the entry level has been maintained in respect of the lecturers of erstwhile junior colleges
(b) the Sixth Pay Commission clearly recommended that the payscales of lecturers should be enhanced to Rs.15,600 - 39,100 and this has been accepted by the government. Thus, the above goes to show that all through the applicants have been treated at par with Group A officers of the Entrance level.
(c) in so far as grade pay is concerned since the grade pay at the entry level of Group A officers with the pay scale of Rs.15,600 -
39,100 is Rs.6600, the same had been rightly extended initially to the applicants which would have continued but for the audit objection and Annexure A-12 order. Of course, there has been a stay of Annexure A-10 order.
(d) the audit objection restricted itself to grade pay only and assuming without accepting that there could be any variation with full justification in the emoluments, the same should have been confined to the said grade pay and not at all with reference to the pay scale. The Ministry, without any rhyme or reason advised the Lakshadweep Administration to reduce the pay scale also which is totally illegal.
(e) The applicants are entitled to the pay scale of Rs 15,600-39,100 as already granted and so is the extent of grade pay, which should be Rs 6,600/- as the applicants have been equated with any Group A officers.
9. Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration had stated that it was on account of the audit objection that the matter was to be referred to the Ministry of Human Resources Development which had by letter dated 21st of September 2011 given it's clarification in consultation with the Ministry of Finance.
10. Counsel for the first respondent submitted that there has been no instruction at all from the Ministry despite various communications.
11. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The claim of the applicants is based on the fact that the earlier pay scales made available to them right from the beginning have all been comparable to those pertaining to erstwhile Class I, currently the Group A post at the entry level. He has compared the earlier pay scales such as Rs 400 - 800, Rs 700 - 1300, Rs 2200 - 4000, Rs 8000 - 13500 and thus, all through the pay scale has been undoubtedly comparable to Group A. And, ultimately, the respondents have also declared the post of Lecturers of the erstwhile Junior colleges and presently holding the post in the Senior Secondary Schools as belonging to Group A, vide para 6 of Order dated 12-08-2005 at Annexure A-3.
12. The Recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission as extracted above have also been keeping in tune with the above i.e. the pay scale recommended viz Rs 15600 - 39100 is the entry level pay scale of Group A post. The same has also been accepted by the Government. The specific exclusion of para 3.8 of the Pay Commission Recommendations and mention of the appellation as 'lecturer' and recommending the pay scale at par with that of the entry level Group A posts in the recommendation as such, is presumably based on the admitted fact that right from the 2nd Pay Commission, the pay scale has all along been comparable with that of the erstwhile Class I posts/currently the Group A posts at the entry level. Again, the same is keeping in tune with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Debashis Kar, (1995) Supp (3) SCC 528. That was a case where tracer of one department had been treated at par with Draughtsman Gr. III of CPWD all along and when the pay scale of Draughtsman Gr. III of CPWD underwent an upward revision, a like revision had not been provided for tracer of the other Department. Tracing the entire history of the case, the Apex court in that case ultimately held as under:-
"This would show that Tracer in Ordnance Factories has all along been treated as equivalent to Tracer/Draughtsman Grade III in CPWD and Draughtsman in Ordnance Factories has all along been treated as equivalent to Assistant Draughtsman/Draughtsman Grade II in CPWD. As a result of the revision of pay scales in CPWD on the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration, the pay scale of Draughtsman Grade III was revised to Rs 330-560, while that of Draughtsman Grade II was revised to Rs 425-700 and of Draughtsman Grade I was revised to Rs 550-750. The denial of similar revision of pay scale to Draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories would result in their being downgraded to the level of Tracer/Draughtsman Grade III in CPWD. Office Memorandum dated 13-3-1984 cannot, in our opinion, be construed as having such an effect."
13. Once the post has been equated with Group A at entry level and consequently the pay scale of Rs 15,600 - 39100 has been recommended and accepted, even if the same be by way of fiction, the logical corollary is that the Grade Pay should also correspond to the pay scale as of Entry level Group A post i.e. Rs 6,600/-. It is pertinent to refer to the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Das vs State of Orissa (2003) 11 SCC 614 wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"39. A legal fiction was created for the purpose of providing the year of allotment. Such legal fiction must be given its full effect. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd (2003) 2 SCC 111 the law is laid down in the following terms:
(SCC p. 123, para 33) "33. The purpose and object of creating a legal fiction in the statute is well known. When a legal fiction is created, it must be given its full effect. In East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council (1951) 2 All ER 587 Lord Asquith, J. stated the law in the following terms: (All ER p. 599 B-D) If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. One of these in this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.
The said principle has been reiterated by this Court in M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, LIC of India (1994) 2 SCC
323. See also Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories (1998) 5 SCC 738, Voltas Ltd. v. Union of India 1995 Supp (2) SCC 498, Harish Tandon v. ADM, Allahabad (1995) 1 SCC 537 and G. Viswanathan v. Hon'ble Speaker, T.N. Legislative Assembly (1996) 2 SCC 353."
14. In view of the above, the pay scale and grade pay granted by the Respondents initially prior to the issue of the impugned orders are fully justified and legal and the audit objection as also the clarification given by Respondent No. 1 is unsustainable.
15. The OA thus, succeeds. The impugned orders at Annexure A-10 and A-12 are hereby quashed and set aside. By an interim order, the said Annexure A-10 was kept in abeyance. Respondents are directed not to truncate the pay scale or grade pay of the applicants and allow them to draw the pay in the scale of Rs 15,600 - 31,900 with the grade pay of Rs 6,600/-.
16. Under the above circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs.
K.NOORJEHAN Dr K.B.S.RAJAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER trs