Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashok Kumar vs M/O Urban Development on 24 July, 2025
Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 724/2018
Reserved on:
on:- 10.07.2025
Pronounced on:
on:- 24.09.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Smt. Ramvati Devi,
W/o Late Ashok Kumar,
Aged about 62 years,
R/o Chuharpur, Post Pairi Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh -
202136.
..Applicant
(Through Advocate: Ms. Pragnya Routray)
VERSUS
1. The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Director Directorate of Printing,
Government of India Press,
Ministry of Urban Development,
'B' Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Manager,
Government of India Press,
Mayapuri, Delhi.
...Respondents
(Through Advocate: Mr. Subhash Gosai)
Page 1 of 17
Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the instant O.A., the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"8. a) Issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent to quash the office order dated 12.7.2017 wherein the respondent held that the Applicant was not entitled to any benefit MACP and grade pay as prayed by him.
b) issuance of appropriate direction to the re respondent to grant the applicant salary in the proper pay scale and grade pay and other benefits as given to his co co-workers as well as the benefit of MACP on completion of 30 years of service w.e.f 29.8.2005 and interest thereof.
c) pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has placed a challenge to the Office Order dated 12.
12.07.2017, which reads as under:-
under:
"Sub: Grant of MACP and Annual Increment to Sh. Ashok Kumar, Conteen Clerk, Ref: His representation dated 01.08.16.
With reference to his representation dated 01.08.16, it is stated that the Directorate of Printing. New Delhi ordered and conveyed to this Press vide Office Memorandum File No. A-32016/14 A 32016/14-2015-A.1 dated 29.05.17 that-
that
2. Directorate of Printing, in view of its O.M. dated 22.03.1996, opines that the period of 27.06.87 to 17.02.92 will be treated as dies-non dies non and this period will rot count is service for increment, pension and other related matters.
3. As per MACP Scheme, Regular Service for the purpose of the MACPS shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis, either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re absorption/re-deployment Page 2 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 basis. Hence, dies non (not qualifying for regular service) accounts for forfeiture of the service during the period of absence. Thus date for his III MACP comes out to be 19.06.2020 (Date of entry into Govt. Service - 30 years - dies non period).
4. Hence, he will be eligible to grant him III MACP w.e.f. 19.06.2020, But he is to be retired on 31.05.18. So he will not get benefit for grant of III MACP."
2.1. She further submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, i.e., in O.A. No. 791/1987 wherein departmental proceedings were pending against the applicant, and his services were terminated, this Tribunal had passed the following directions:
directions:-
"5. In the case of termination of serv services of an adhoc and temporary employees after 3 years of service it was held that even in the ground of unsatisfactory work without there being any appointing of lapses and short coming regarding work and giving opportunity to employee to improve the termination termination would be arbitrary. The plea of respondent that the applicant was not Government Servant or equated within an employee and nor entitled to benefit G.F. of 1979 is without substance.
6. The application is accordingly allowed and the termination order order dated 26.6.87 is quashed and set aside. The applicant would be deemed to be continuing in service entitled to all benefits except that for the period he has not worked he will be not entitled to get salary from the date of termination upto this date./he should be taken back in service without delay. No order as to costs."
2.2. The said order came to be challenged before the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13791/1992 and the following order was passed:-
passed:
"Upon hearing counsel Court made the following Wi Without going into the question regarding the relationship between the parties, Dr. Anand Prakash, Counsel for Union of India states that the Petitioner will arrange to see that the respondent is taken back on the post which he was occupying prior to the termination termination of his service by the Canteen Management with effect from the date of the Page 3 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 order of the Tribunal without payment of any back wages whatsoever. It is also necessary to notice that on the charges for which he was prosecuted, he has since been acquitted. The petition will therefore stand disposed of in acquitted.
view of the statement of Dr. Anand Prakash as nothing survives."
2.3. Pursuant to which, the applicant has filed the present O.A. Unfortunately, the applicant had expired during the pendency of the O.A. and now his legal heirs are contesting this matter. Learned counsel for the applicant highlighted the response dated 22.10.2019 to the RTI application preferred by the applicant (Annexure (Annexure-
A-9 9 to the the rejoinder), which reads as under:
under:-
"Sub: Information sought under the RTI Act 2005 Reference your application dated 05/10/2019 seeking certain information under RTI Act in the requisite information dated 9/10/2019 Press.
Sl. Information Information
No. sought
1. Kindly state the You have filed a case
reason for non before the CAT (PB)
payment of the against the
terminal benefits of department.
the applicant such as Therefore, payment of
gratuity GIS etc. even Gratuity, GIS etc
after his retirement could not be made
after your retirement.
2. Kindly state the reason The Directorate of as to why the Printing the Govt. of provisional pension India press, has released to the issued order dated applicant was stopped 24.4.2019 to prepare your full pension. As a result of which your provisional pension stopped. Your pension case is under consideration before The Directorate of Printing the Govt. of India press was Page 4 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 If you are not satisfied with the information given above, then you can file an Appeal within a period of 30 days before the Manger Govt. of India press Ring Road, New Delhi."
2.4 As per the version of the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant had completed 30 years of service on 29.08.2015, whereas in the impugned order, it has been contended that the applicant's 30 years of service would have been completed on 19.06.2020 and the applicant retired on 31.05.2018.
3. Opposing the grant of relief(s), learned counsel for the respondents relied on the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He contended that the applicant was not granted back wages and the period from 27.06.1987 to 17.02.1992 was treated as dies-non non as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the impugned order has been passed in the right perspective. He relied upon para 6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:-
under:
"6. Thereafter, Union Of India approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and filed S.L.P. No. 13791/92 (after notice from the Judgment and order dated 18.02.1992 of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 791/1987). Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed the order dated dated 19.7.1993 upon hearing Govt. Counsel and stated the following:-
following:
"Without going into the question regarding the Page 5 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 relationship between the parties, Dr. Anand Prakash, Counsel for Union of India states that the Petitioner will arrange to see that the respon respondent is taken back on the post which he was occupying prior to the termination of his service by the Canteen Management with effect from the date of the order of the Tribunal without payment of any back wages whatsoever. It is also necessary to notice that on the charges for which he was prosecuted, he has since been acquitted. The petition will therefore stand disposed of in view of the statement of Dr. Anand Prakash as nothing survives". A copy of the Supreme Court Order dated 19.07.1993 is enclosed herew herewith and marked (Annexure-R. IV)."
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. The issue to be examined in the present case is whether the period in question, i.e., from the date of termination rmination until the re-engagement engagement of the applicant, ought to be counted for the purpose of granting benefits, such as salary in the appropriate pay scale and grade pay, and other benefits like ACP/MACP, or whether it should be treated as dies non. To exami examine this issue, it is necessary to consider the directions issued by the Tribunal regarding the grant of continuity in service.
6. ANALYSIS 6.1. In Om Pal Singh vs Disciplinary Authority decided on 14 January, 2020 (AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1920, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 36), the Apex Court observed as under :-
Page 6 of 17
Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 "11. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr. , this Court dealt with the issue regarding the entitlement of a delinquent to claim continuity of service and consequential benefits in all cases of reinstatement as follows:
"17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, 'continuity of service' an and 'consequential benefits' should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several promotions as a 'consequential benefit' to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have the benefit of necessary experience ffor discharging the 6 (2007) 2 SCC 433 higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualized while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever courts or Tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the the facts and circumstances to decide whether 'continuity of service' and/or 'consequential benefits' should also be directed. We may in this behalf refer to the decisions of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narasa Goud [2003 (2) (2) SCC 212], A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Abdul Kareem [2005 (6) 6) SCC 36] and R.S.R.T.C. v. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta [2005 (7) SCC 406]."
6.2. We observe that the issue involved in the present Original Application is no longer res integra in light of decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc vs O.P. Gupta Etc decided on 12 January, 1996 (reported in JT 1996 (3), 141 1996 SCALE (1) 602, AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2936), wherein it has been held as under:-
under:
"Having Having regard to the above contentions, the question arises: whether the respondents are entitled to the arrears of salary? It is seen that their entitlement tto Page 7 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 work arises only when they are promoted in accordance with the Rules. Preparation of the seniority list under Rule 9 is a condition precedent for consideration and then to pass an order of promotion and posting to follow. Until that exercise is done, the respondents cannot be posted in the promotional posts. Therefore, their contention that though they were willing to work, they were not given the work after posting them in promotional posts has no legal foundation. The rival parties had agitated their ri right to seniority. Ultimately, this Court had directed the appellant to prepare the seniority list strictly in accordance with Rule 9 untrammeled by any other inconsistent observation of the Court or the instructions issued in contravention thereof. Since tthe order had become final in 1990, when the appeal had been disposed of by the Court by the above directions, the State in compliance thereof prepared the seniority list in accordance with the Rules and those directions and promotions were given to all elieligible persons and postings were made accordingly on December 1, 1992. In the interregnum some had retired. As stated earlier, though the deemed date has been given as 1.1.1983, the respondents cannot legitimately claim to have worked in those posts for claclaiming arrears and, as a fact, they did not work even on ad hoc basis.
This Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1989) 2 SCR 92 at page 109] considered the direction issued by the High Court and upheld that there has to be "no pay for no work", i.e., a person will not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period for which he did not perform the duties of higher post, although after due consideration, he was given a pro proper place in the gradation list having been deemed to be promoted to the higher post with effect from the date his junior was promoted. He will be entitled only to step up the scale of pay retrospectively from the deemed date but is not entitled to the payment payment of arrears of the salary. The same ratio was reiterated in Virender Kumar vs. Avinash Chandra Chadha [(1990) 3 SCC 482] in paragraph 16.
It is true, as pointed out by Sri Hooda, that in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman [AIR 1991 SC 2010] this Court had held that where the incumbent was willing Page 8 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 to work but was denied the opportunity to work for no fault of him, he is entitled to the payment of arr arrears of salary. That is a case where the respondent was kept under suspension during departmental enquiry and sealed cover procedure was adopted because of the pendency of the criminal case. When the criminal case ended in his favour and departmental proce proceedings were held to be invalid, this Court held that he was entitled to the arrears of salary. That ratio has no application to the cases where the claims for promotion are to be considered in accordance with the rules and the promotions are to be made pur pursuant thereto."
6.3. In Appeal (civil) 7953 of 2004 State of Kerala & Ors. VS E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai decided on 17/04/2007, the Apex Court held as under ::-
17/04/2007, "Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court maymay grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also.
als However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted from retrospective rospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he approached the Court and learned Single Judge did not give him the monetary benefit of the promotional post from retrospective efeffect in terms Page 9 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 of arrears of salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. No. 585 of 1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This appears to be reasonable. The petitioner did not approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but but he filed a petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the date of filing of the petition before the Court i.e.15.6.1972.The incumbent in the meanwhile has retired on 31.7.1980.Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere in it. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
6.4 The Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D (D.Ed.) and others further analyzed various other decisions on this others, issue, including J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K P Agarwal and Another and culled out the position of law as under:
"33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments judgments are:
i). In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii). The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors. XXX
iv). The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power Under Section 1111-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified sta standing orders, if Page 10 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is nnot at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages.
v). The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross vio violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superi superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the same.
The Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no jus justification to give premium to the employer of his wrong doings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages.
vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the prim primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the Page 11 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 sufferer, suff erer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).
vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to herein above and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman." 6.5 The decisions in J.K. Synthetics (supra) and Deepali Gundu (supra) were were considered in two decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mahabir Prasad v. DTC, DTC, (2014) 144 DRJ 422 and Jagdish Chander v. DTC, DTC, 2020 LLR 754, wherein in the facts of the said case (Mahabir Prasad v. DTC case) Reinstatement was was directed by the Labour Commissioner, with continuity of service but without back wages. Thereafter, DTC reinstated the workman without any back wages and without any benefits on notional pay fixation, promotion, ACP, increments, and withheld pension and terminal benefits also. Challenging the said decisions, the Workman claimed that since "continuity of service" was directed, he would be entitled to pension and other terminal benefits. In Page 12 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 this case, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"20. The above discussion reveals that there appeared to be no standard pattern of directing how a reinstated employee is to be given the benefit after reinstatement. In Deepali Gundu Surwase(supra), for the first time, the restitutionary principl principle underlying reinstatement and other benefits was spelt out and a semblance of uniformity was attempted. If that is to be kept in mind, what is apparent in this case is that the petitioner had to battle for over a decade and a half to secure justice. The Labour Labour Court held that that the enquiry against him illegal; went into the material an found that the charge of misconduct was baseless. It consequently directed reinstatement without back wages. Whilst the denial of back wages is not in question, the Award directed continuity of service. If DTC's contention were to be accepted, the petitioner would stand doubly penalized for the delay in securing justice, plainly for no fault of his. The denial of 15 years' salary would result in his denial of pension, or at least a vastly diminished pension, gratuity and other terminal benefits. If these benefits are denied, the direction to grant continuity of service would be a hollow relief. Furthermore, to restore him in the pay scale at the stage of his termination wowould be to freeze him in a pay scale that is no longer existent, or at least unrecognizable. It is pertinent that a withholding of 2 increments for two years, with cumulative effect has been held to be a major penalty (imposable only after an enquiry) since the increments "would not be counted in his time time-scale of pay" in perpetuity. In other words, the clock would be set back in terms of his earning a higher scale of pay, by two scales. See Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504. Keeping thi this in mind, if the petitioner were to be restored in the pay scale at the stage of his termination, it would amount to withholding several increments, and thus be equivalent to imposing a compounded major penalty.
21. Consequently, Consequently, it is held that the direction to grant continuity meant that the petitioner had to be given notional increments for the duration he was out of employment, in the grade and the equivalent grade Page 13 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 which replaced it later, till he reached the end of the pay scale.
scale. Since there is no direction to give consequential benefits, the petitioner cannot claim promotion as a matter of right; it would have to be in accordance with the rules. ACP benefits however, should be given. The notional pay fixation would also mean that he would be entitled to reckon the period between his removal and reinstatement as having been in employment for pension, gratuity, and contributions to provident fund etc. This Court directs the DTC to issue an order extending these benefits to the petitioner for the 15 year period between his dismissal in 1995 and his eventual reinstatement in 2011, within eight weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in these terms; there shall be no order as to costs."
6.6 In the case of Jagdish Chander (s (supra), reinstatement was directed with full back wages. Upon challenge, the Hon'ble High Court in an LPA had modified this order to deny back wages, but DTC had agreed not to challenge reinstatement, to grant the benefit of continuity of service and to com compute pension accordingly. Thereafter, the Workman was not given ACP benefits and various other benefits. Since the Division Bench in LPA had recorded that it was upholding the award on the basis of DTC's assurance that continuity of service would be given, the Court directed the Workman's pay scale to be fixed by notionally granting him increments and benefits under the ACP scheme, and held as under ::-
"28. Therefore, what becomes clear from a perusal of Page 14 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 the judgment in Mahabir Prasad (supra) is that reinstatement with continuity of service is the norm. reinstatement While in Mahabir Prasad (supra) the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with continuity but without back wages, in the present case the Labour Court ordered both reinstatement and full back wages. The DB of of this Court modified the Award only to the extent of denying the Petitioner full back wages but acknowledged that the intent of the Award was to grant the Petitioner continuity of service. This is plain from the operative portion of the order of the DB pa partly allowing DTC's LPA. It explained the rationale for denial of full back wages as follows: "In our considered opinion, when the corporation has agreed not to challenge the order of reinstatement, extend the benefit of continuity of service and compute tthe pension on the said factual backdrop. The CAT, in the impugned order, erred in denying the Petitioner the benefit of continuity in service upon reinstatement and in applying the law as explained in Mahabir Prasad (supra) that while this would not entitl entitle him to promotions, the Petitioner would upon reinstatement be entitled to the increments on the pay scale he was drawing at the time of termination of his services and further that for the purpose of gratuity and pension he would be treated as having bee been in service throughout.
30. The CAT erred in referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Narsagoud (supra) which has been squarely dealt with and rejected by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). In fact, the CAT failed to take notice of the aforesaid judgments in spite of the Petitioner raising this specific point in his RA No. 39/2016. 31. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned orders of the CAT are hereby set aside. The Respondent/DTC is directed to: ii. Fix the Petitioner's pay scale by notionally granting him the increments and benefits under the ACP Scheme to which he now stands entitled."
6.7 Applying the ratio laid down in the decisions stated above, we observe that the case of the applicant Page 15 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 falls within the four corners of the decision rendered in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its directions, neither restricted nor modified the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court or this Tribunal. No separate order(s) regarding dies non were passed by the respondents at the time of reinstating the applicant into service. The classification of the period as dies non was solely for the purpose of limiting the applicant's claim to back wages, based on the principle of "No Work, No Pay." It cannot, therefore, be construed as a restriction on the expression "continuity in service." 6.8 We find that once the applicant wa was reinstated with directions for continuity in service, the applicant applicant's case ought to have been considered for ACP/MACP Schemes. Therefore, the applicant ought to be accorded the benefits on a notional basis. Accordingly, we are of the view that for no fault fault on the part of the applicant, his genuine claim cannot be denied.
7. CONCLUSION 7.1 In view of the above detailed analysis, we allow the present OA and set set aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2017. We direct the respondents to re re-fix Page 16 of 17 Item No.59 (Court - 5) O.A. No.724/2018 the pay/pension of the applicant on a notional basis only by giving him the benefit of 1st, 2nd and 3rd ACP/MACP Schemes, if otherwise eligible. Upon re re-
fixation of the pay and pension, the arrears regarding the revision of pension shall be restricted to tthree years prior to the date of filing of the present OA in light of the decision rendered in UOI vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified co copy of this Order.
7.2. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sg/
Page 17 of 17