Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
G Kannan vs M/O Communications on 23 September, 2022
1 OA 1221/2017
`
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA NO.1221/2017
Dated Friday, the 23rd day of September, Two Thousand Twenty Two
CORUM: HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
&
HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1.G.Kannan,
2.P.S.Babu
3.T.Ramadass
4.P.Pachaiappan
5.K.Purushothaman
6.G.Gnanasekaran
7.D.Radhakrishnan
8.Mrs.Prema Rangarajan
9.R.Subbarayan
10.R.Raghavan
11.S.Ganesan
12.M.Palanivelu
13.R.Ramadurai
14.A.E.Delli
15.R.Sivapitchai
16.S.Vellaiyan
17.G.Manickam
18.G.Chakravarthi
19.M.Elangovan
20.M.Marimuthu
21.K.Ramamoorthy
22.N.Nagarathinam
23.K.Palanisamy
24.N.Pandurangan ...Applicants
By Advocate M/s P.R.Satyanarayanan
2 OA 1221/2017
Vs.
1.Union of India,
rep., by The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India,
New Delhi 110 001.
3.The Secretary,
Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,New Delhi 110 003.
4.The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai 600 002. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr.R.S.Krishnaswamy
3 OA 1221/2017
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this OA, the applicants are challenging the impugned order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the 4th respondent wherein the applicants' claim for grant of pension with reference to the replacement pay scale i.e., PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP of Rs.4600 w.e.f 01.01.2006 has been rejected.
2. To consider the case of the applicants it is necessary to note down the brief facts of the case in nutshell as under:-
All the applicants in the present OA had retired on superannuation from the respondent department on different dates before 31.12.2005, i.e., before implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations. All the applicants served in Tamilnadu Postal Circle and before their retirement they were all regularly promoted to HSG-I in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 (S-12). As per recommendations of the 6th CPC, initially the post of HSG-I was placed in the Pay Band of PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP of Rs.4200. Subsequently, Vide Ministry of Finance OM dated 13.11.2009, the pay scale of HSG-I was upgraded to Rs.7450-225-11500 w.e.f 01.01.2006 and accordingly the officials who were promoted to HSG-I were placed in the corresponding Pay Band PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP of Rs.4600 w.e.f 01.01.2006 revised pay band PB-2 of Rs.9300-34800 with GP Rs.4600/-. But the pension of the applicants have been refixed with reference to PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 with GP Rs.4200/- only. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants represented to the 4 th respondent seeking revision of pension with reference to PB-2 of Rs.9300- 34800 with GP Rs.4600. But by letter dated 19.04.2017 the claim of the applicants have been rejected informing that their claims have been rejected after consultation with the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, 4 OA 1221/2017 Department of Expenditure. However, in OM No.38/33/12-P&PW(A) dated 04.01.2019, it has been ordered by GOI, DOP&PW that the pension of pre-
2006 HSG-I officials would be revised w.r.t. Grade Pay of Rs.4600 and that for this purpose, it has been ordered that the pension of pre-2006 retirees would be refixed w.r.t. Sl.No. 13 of the fitment table annexed to DOP&PW OM No.F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 as substituted by OM No.38/33/12-P & PW(A) dated 04.01.2019. The pension of the officials in HSG-I who retired after 01.01.2006, are fixed w.r.t Sl.14 in the fitment table annexed to the OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013, whereas the pension of the applicants who also retired as HSG-I officials were refixed with reference to PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200/- which is replacement scale for V CPC pay scale Rs.6500-10500 (S-12) in accordance with Sl No.13 of the fitment table annexed to the OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 and as a result the minimum pension payable to the applicants is only Rs.8435/- instead of Rs.9230 as would be applicable for the post- 2006 retirees from HSG-I grade which is a clear discrimination. Hence the applicants have filed the present OA praying the following reliefs:
"(i)To call for the records relating to proceedings No.APA/87-
3/2016 dated 19.04.2017 passed by the 4 th respondent w.r.t the applicants' claim for grant of pension w.r.t. the replacement pay scale i.e., PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP of Rs.4600 w.e.f 01.01.2006 and quash the same as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal and
(ii)Direct the respondents to refix the pension of the applicants w.e.f 01.01.2006 with reference to the replacement pay scale i.e., Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP Rs.4600/- as applicable to all HSG-I officials in service after 01.01.2006, i.e., S.14 of the fitment table circulated along with DOP&PW OM No.F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 instead of Sl.13 of the OM dated 28.01.2013 as modified by OM No.38/33/12-P & PW(A) dated 04.01.2019."
3. After notice the respondents have entered appearance through their 5 OA 1221/2017 counsel and filed the counter affidavit denying all the contentions raised by the applicants in this OA . They have submitted that in the 6 th CPC, four pre- revised scales, i.e., S-9 to S-12 were merged into one Pay Band of PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP of Rs.4200 and accordingly the pension of the Pre- 2006 retirees who held the HSG-I at the time of their retirement were fixed in the corresponding revised Pay band PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP of Rs.4200. Subsequently, Vide Ministry of Finance OM dated 13.11.2009, the pay scale of HSG-I was upgraded to Rs.7450-225-11500 w.e.f 01.01.2006 and accordingly the officials who were promoted to HSG-I were placed in the corresponding Pay Band PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP of Rs.4600 w.e.f 01.01.2006. Accordingly, the Pre-2006 pensioners submitted representations to the 4th respondent for revision of pension w.r.t. the replacement pay scale i.e., PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with GP of Rs.4600 w.e.f 01.01.2006. The matter was referred to Directorate, New Delhi as it is a Policy Decision. The Directorate, New Delhi after consulting with DoP&PW and Department of Expenditure, New Delhi gave a reply dated 28.03.2017 that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure has informed that the normal corresponding replacement scale for the pre-revised scale in S-12 grade as notified by them, based on the recommendations of the 6th CPC is Pay Band 2 + GP 4200/-. Hence the pension of the Pre-2006 retirees of S-12 Grade has to be fixed in the corresponding revised pay band Rs.9300-34800 + GP 4200 only. Accordingly, a reply dated 19.04.2017 was given to all the applicants herein.
4. The respondents contend that the impugned order was issued on receipt of clarification from the Directorate after obtaining the opinion of DoP&PW and Department of Expenditure. They further submitted that DoP&PW has issued OM No.38/33/12-P&PW(A) dated 04.01.2019 wherein it 6 OA 1221/2017 is stated that for the purpose of revision of pension/family pension w.e.f 01.01.2006 under para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008, the Grade Pay of Rs.4600 may be considered as the corresponding Grade Pay in the case of pre-2006 pensioners who retired/died in the 5 th CPC scale of Rs.6500-10500 or equivalent pay scale in the earlier Pay Commissions. While envisaging extending benefits of granting of GP of Rs.4600 to pre-2006 pensioners, the OM dated 04.01.2019 clearly stipulates that only Grade pay of Rs.4600 corresponding to upgraded pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 was granted to the post which were in the pre revised scale of Rs.6500-10500. But no where in the order has it been mentioned that pre-2006 pensioners who were holding, the post in the pre revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 are to be placed in the upgraded scale of Rs.7450-11500. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the OA.
5. Heard both the counsels and perused the records of OA.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that when the applicants approached this Tribunal in OA 231/2012 & batch, the applicants are entitled to the GP of Rs.4600 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450- 11500. When the grade pay corresponding to particular pay scale is allowed, it obviously means that it is corresponding to that particular pay scale only and not the lower pay scale. Therefore, in terms of OM dated 13.11.2009 as well as from the order of the Tribunal, it is quite clear that the applicants had been allowed GP of Rs.4600 which corresponds to pay scale of Rs.7450- 11500 only. The presumption of the respondents that the pay scale shall be retained at Rs.6500-10500 and only the grade pay would be changed from Rs.4200 to Rs.4600 is illogical and unjustified.
7. It is to be noted that in Para 4.2 of the DoP&PW OM dated 01.09.2008, it is stated as under:
7 OA 1221/2017
"4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale."
In Para 6 of the DoP&PW OM dated 06.04.2016, it is stated as under:-
"6. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). It has now- been decided that the revised consolidated pension of pre-2006 pensioners shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay (wherever applicable) corresponding to the pre revised pay scale as per fitment table without pro-rata reduction of pension even if they had qualifying service of less than 33 years at the time of retirement. Accordingly, Para 5 of this Department's OM of even number dated 28.1.2013 would stand deleted. The arrears of revised pension would be payable with effect from 1.1.2006."
In Para 7 of the DoP&PW OM No.38/33/12-P&PW(A) dated 04.01.2019, it is stated as under:
"7. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the pay corresponding to the pay of Rs. 6500/- in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- would be Rs. 12090/- in the PB-2. After adding the grade pay of Rs. 4600/-, the pay in the Pay Band+Grade Pay corresponding to the pay of Rs. 6500/- in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 would be Rs. 16690/- (12090+4600). Accordingly, the revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of para 4.2 of OM dated 1.9.2008, for the pre-2006 pensioners who retired from the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- in the 5 th CPC or equivalent pay scales in the earlier Pay Commissions would be Rs. 8345/-. Accordingly the entries at serial number 13 in the annexure of this Department's OM No. 38/37/08- P&PW(A) dated 28.1.2013 may be substituted by the entries shown in the/statement annexed to this O.M."
8. It is to be noted that after a number of orders by courts that there could be no discrimination between the pre and post 2006 retirees, the Government of India, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare issued instructions under OM dated 06.04.2016 for revising the pension of pre 2006 pensioners and subsequently the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions issued 8 OA 1221/2017 OM dated 04.01.2019 and 09.07.2019. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the OM dated 04.01.2019 is arbitrary and discriminatory because as per which the pension of the officials in HSG-I who retired after 01.01.2006, are to be fixed w.r.t Sl.14 in the fitment table annexed to the OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013, whereas the pension of the applicants who also retired as HSG-I officials are to be refixed w.r.t Sl. No.13 of the fitment table annexed to the OM No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 and as a result the minimum pension payable to the applicants is only Rs.8435/- instead of Rs.9230 as would be applicable for the post-2006 retirees from HSG-I grade which is a clear discrimination. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of All Manipur Pensioners Association Vs. The State of Manipur & Ors dated 11.07.2019, the relevant paras of the said judgment are extracted hereunder:
8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm opinion that there is no valid justification to create two classes, viz., one who retired pre1996 and another who retired post1996, for the purpose of grant of revised pension, In our view, such a classification has no nexus with the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised pension. All the pensioners form a one class who are entitled to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification. However, a very classification must be based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Therefore, whenever a cutoff date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification or valid discrimination therefore must necessarily be satisfied. In the present case, the classification in question has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a 9 OA 1221/2017 single class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cutoff date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There has to be a classification founded on some rational principle when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of any benefit. 8.1. As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute that as such a decision has been taken by the State Government to revise the pension keeping in mind the increase in the cost of living. Increase in the cost of living would affect all the pensioners irrespective of whether they have retired pre1996 or post1996. As observed hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class. Therefore, by such a classification/cutoff date the equals are treated as unequals and therefore such a classification which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision of pension is unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and therefore the said classification was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is required to be observed that whenever a new benefit is granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be possible for the State to provide a cutoff date taking into consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons, the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is with respect to revision.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the controversy/issue in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra). The decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the case on hand. The Division Bench of the High Court has clearly erred in not following the decision of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) and has clearly erred in reversing the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench is not sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby restored and it is held that all the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, viz. pre1996 retirees shall be entitled to revision in pension at par with those pensioners who retired post1996. The arrears be paid to the respective pensioners within a period of three months from today.
9. The applicant also relied upon the orders passed by this Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA 655/2010 dated 01.01.2011 which was upheld by the Hon'ble High court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and OA 937/2010 dated 20.11.2014 and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi in WP No.3035/2016 dated 03.08.2016. The Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi in their order dated 03.08.2016 considered the various aspects in respect of the question regarding creation of different classes within the same cadre on the basis of the doctrine of intelligible differentia having nexus with the object to be achieved with the support of the decisions 10 OA 1221/2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India , Union of India & Anr. vs Central Govt. SAG & Ors and order passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.K.Aggarwal & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors, considered the recommendations made by the 6th CPC in detail along with the order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of S.A.Khan & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., and allowed the WP No.3035/2016 with a direction that the pre 2006 pensioners are also entitled for refixation of pension at par with the post 2006 retirees. The learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore in OA 730/2017, vide order dated 18.06.2018 wherein the Tribunal considered similar case and allowed the OA with an observation that the benefit of revision of pension as per the 6 th Pay Commission is not only applicable to the employees who were working as on 01.01.2006 but also to those who retired before 01.01.2006. The learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble High court of Kerala in OP(CAT) No.169/2015 dated 18.01.2016 in the matter of UOI V. N.R.Purushothaman Pillai wherein it is held that "The resultant position that emerges from the pronouncement of the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the different High Courts and the Apex court is that, computation of pension in the matter of implementation of the 6 th Pay Commission Report has to be at 50% of the pay scale with respect to the scale of pay applicable to the post in question and not to the corresponding scale of pay to the one at which the incumbent has retired." The said order dated 18.01.2016 of the Hon'ble High court was challenged by the respondent department before the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP(C) No.021189/2017 and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme 11 OA 1221/2017 Court. It is also to be noted that the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam in OA 1026/2018 dated 11.08.2020 & in OA 526/2016 dated 16.03.2017 wherein similarly placed HSG-I officials who retired prior to 01.01.2006 were granted the relief of revision of pension in terms of Para 4.2 of DoP&PW OM dated 01.09.2008 or 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 + GP Rs.4600 or as per Annexure A-4 fitment table, whichever is beneficial to the applicants therein. According to Para 4.2 of DoP&PW OM dated 01.09.2008, revision of pension to pre 2006 pensioners should not be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. As such the pension of the applicant has to be calculated at the rate of 50% of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band + Grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale w.e.f 01.01.2006 with reference to the fitment table annexed by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM dated 30.08.2008 including arrears of pension and other terminal benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of actual payment.
10. While opposing the relief, the respondents have relied upon the following judgments:
(i) Order of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High court in WP(MD) No.7555/2013 dated 14.08.2012
(ii) Order of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of the Madras High court in WA(MD) No.1026/2012 and MP(MD) No.2/2012 dated 22.11.2021
(iii) Order of the CAT, Bangalore Bench in OA 385/2020 dated 03.09.2021
11. Upon perusal of the above cited orders relied upon by the both the 12 OA 1221/2017 counsels, we find that the various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court, Hon'ble High Court as well as coordinate Benches of this Tribunal relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is squarely applicable to the present case. It is pertinent to mention that the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Bangalore in OA 730/2017 wherein same issue has been dealt with is squarely applicable to the present case. The relevant paras of the said order dated 18.06.2018 is extracted hereunder:
10.When the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA.No.231/2012 & connected matters, this particular issue was raised and the applicant contended that they are entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs.4600 corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. When the grade pay corresponding to particular pay scale is allowed, it obviously means that it is corresponding to that particular pay scale only and not the lower pay scale. Therefore, in terms of OM dtd.13.11.2009 as well as from the order of Tribunal, it is quite clear that the applicant had been allowed Grade Pay of Rs.4600 which corresponds to Pay Scale of Rs.7450-11500 only. The presumption of the respondents that the pay scale shall be retained at Rs.6500-10500 and only the grade pay would be changed from Rs.4200 to Rs.4600 is therefore illogical and unjustified. In terms of revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners vide OM dtd.28.01.2013, the minimum pension corresponding to pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 with grade pay of Rs.4600 comes to Rs.9230.
Therefore, the pay arrived at by the respondents by giving multiplication of factor which is Rs.8973 should have been changed to Rs.9230 and the applicant is entitled to a minimum pension of Rs.9230. The stand taken by the respondents to only increasing the grade pay keeping the earlier pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as it is is completely wrong and does not stand to any reason. Moreover, if this was the interpretation of the respondents according to which the order of the Tribunal in OA.No.231/2012 will not result in any change in the pension of the applicant and similarly placed persons, there was no justification on their part for approaching the Hon'ble High Court against the order of the Tribunal and thereafter Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11.The OM dtd.13.11.2009 had clearly stipulated that the posts which were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200 will be granted grade pay of Rs.4600 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 with effect from 01.01.2006. This makes evidently clear that the applicants were to be considered against the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 with grade pay of Rs.4600. The revised pay and pension has to be calculated on that basis and that comes to Rs.9230. The manner of computing the pension by the respondents is therefore completely wrong and bereft of any logic. Therefore, we hold that the order of August 2017 at Annexure-A12 is completely erroneous and unjustified and the same stands quashed. The respondents are directed to grant revised pension of Rs.9230/- to the applicant w.e.f. 01.01.2006 along with consequential benefits within a period of one(1) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12.The OA is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs." 13 OA 1221/2017 The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the present case on the ground of facts and claims of the parties.
12. It is to be noted that the respondents have no case that the service condition of the applicants is not covered by the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and CCS (Extraordinary) Pension Rules. There is no distinction between persons drawing different types of pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Hence the OA on hand is identical and similar to the cases cited supra and judgment made in the above cases are binding on the issue on hand. Following the same ratio, in the interest of justice, and as the applicants herein are entitled for the same relief, the present OA is also allowed with the following direction without expressing any different views:
"The impugned order dated 19.04.2017 passed by the 4th respondent is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refix the pension of the applicants w.e.f 01.01.2006 with reference to the replacement pay scale, i.e., Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with Grade Pay Rs.4600/- as applicable to all HSG-I officials in service after 01.01.2006, i.e., Sl.14 of the fitment table circulated along with DOP&PW OM No.F.No.38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013 instead of Sl.13 of the OM dated 28.01.2013 as modified by OM No.38/33/12-P&PW(A) dated 04.01.2019 along with consequential benefits, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the amount is not paid within a period of three months, then without prejudice to any other remedy that the applicant may have, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
13. The OA is allowed as above. No order as to costs."
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) (T. Jacob) Member (J) 23.09.2022 Member (A) MT