Kerala High Court
S. Satheesh vs The Secretary-Cum-Cadre Controlling ... on 29 November, 2025
O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025
: 1 :-
2025:KER:91866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
SATURDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 /8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 110 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2025 IN OA NO.294
OF 2020 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH)
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
S. SATHEESH
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O K.S. SARVOTHAMAN, SENIOR STATISTICAL OFFICER
(E.C. 3728), N.S.S.O.(F.O.D.), SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
KENDRIYA BHAVAN, 3 RD FLOOR, CSEZ, KAKKANAD-P.O.,
KOCHI-682 037 AND RESIDING AT SREE VALSOM, NEAR FIRE
STATION, A.K.G.ROAD, THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA POST
OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682301
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
SMT.HARSHA C.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY-CUM-CADRE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS &
PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD
MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE DIRECTOR
SUBORDINATE STATISTICAL SERVICE (SSS) AND APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
STATISTICS & PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL
BHAVAN,SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI ., PIN - 110001
3 THE REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF
PERFORMANCE OF SUBORDINATE STATISTICAL SERVICE (SSS),
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS &
PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD
MARG, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN., PIN -
110001
4 THE UNDER SECRETARY
O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025
: 2 :-
2025:KER:91866
SUBORDINATE STATISTICAL SERVICE (SSS), GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS & PROGRAMME
IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW
DELHI ., PIN - 110001
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY OFFICE (FIELD OPERATION
DIVISION), REGIONAL OFFICE,KERALA (SOUTH), C.G.O.
COMPLEX, POONKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695522
6 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
HEAD OF OFFICE, NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY OFFICE (FIELD
OPERATION DIVISION), SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KENDRIYA
BHAVAN, 3 RD FLOOR, CSEZ, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
KENDRIYA BHAVAN, 3 RD FLOOR, CSEZ, KAKKANAD POST
OFFICE, KOCHI, PIN - 682037
7 THE SENIOR STATISTICAL OFFICER
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS &
PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, NATIONAL STATISTICAL OFFICE
DIVISION, ROOM NO.528, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD
MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
BY ADVS.
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SRI.T.V.VINU
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2025,
THE COURT ON 29.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025
: 3 :-
2025:KER:91866
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
O.P.(CAT). No.110 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of November 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner in O.A.No.294/2020 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenging the order dated 24.03.2025 dismissing his O.A.
2. The petitioner joined the service of the National Sample Survey Organisation as Investigator, on 25.09.1991. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Investigator Grade I on 19.05.2011, which is a Group 'B' post. The said post was later re-designated as Senior Statistical Officer. While so, the 5 th and 6th respondents developed a grudge towards the petitioner and they started taking steps to ruin his career. But he successfully waded through the troubled waters and was able to get timely MACP's/promotion. Meanwhile, the petitioner was served with Annexure A5 order dated 25.09.2019, issued by the 4th respondent, stating that the competent authority has decided to retire him under Rule 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules.
The petitioner was also issued with Annexure A6 order dated O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 4 :-
2025:KER:91866 25.09.2019 by the 4th respondent stating that he has been retired in public interest as per the opinion of the Secretary-cum-Cadre Controlling Authority of Subordinate Statistical Service, with immediate effect. Thereafter, the petitioner was also served with Annexure A7 order dated 26.09.2019 issued by the 5 th respondent confirming his retirement. Subsequently, the representation committee also rejected the representations of the petitioner as per Annexure A12 order dated 13.12.2019. It is aggrieved by Annexures A5 to A7, A12 orders and Annexure A10 decision of the review committee, the petitioner filed O.A.No.294 of 2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam.
3. The learned Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, dismissed the O.A. on 24.03.2025.
4. Heard Adv.N.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Adv.T.V.Vinu, the learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Annexures A5 and A6 orders have been issued by an incompetent person, who is an Under Secretary and, therefore, these orders cannot be sustained. He argued that the appropriate authority, who can issue orders of compulsory retirement is the first respondent, the Secretary-cum-Cadre Controlling Authority and hence Annexures A5 O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 5 :-
2025:KER:91866 and A6 orders cannot be sustained. He, by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Baldev Raj Chadha v. Union of India and Others (AIR 1981 SC 70), contended that in the absence of application of mind and in the absence of an independent objective consideration by the first respondent, his conclusion that the petitioner is to be compulsorily retired in public interest cannot be accepted. He, also by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.(2015 (8) SCC 519), contended that adhering to the principles of natural justice is a must before issuing such orders and the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing Annexures A5 and A6 orders. He, further by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M.Patel [(2001) 3 SCC 314], contended that compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry or as a punitive measure and that if a promotion is given, despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that acts in favour of the officer. He argued that the petitioner was granted timely MACP's/increments and was promoted during the period of five years prior to his retirement and his ACRs during that period would show that he is having good service record. He contended that, as per the Rules, the review has O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 6 :-
2025:KER:91866 to be conducted six months prior to the petitioner attaining the age of 50 years and since, the same is not done, the order of compulsory retirement is illegal.
6. Per contra, the learned CGC appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He, after taking us through Annexure R4, the minutes of the Review Committee meeting, which considered the case of the petitioner in detail argued that it was placed before the first respondent for consideration and approval and the first respondent has after considering the same, given approval.
According to the learned counsel, Annexures A5 and A6 are only communications of the decision thus taken by the competent authority and nothing more. He submitted that the Departments/Ministries are fully empowered to constitute review committees for periodical assessment of performance of the employees, which will review the service records of the employees and put in their recommendations which in turn, will be duly considered by the appropriate authority and orders passed. He also submitted that the proceedings will show that an objective satisfaction has been reached by the authorities and therefore, nothing vitiates Annexures A5 and A6 orders. He further, by relying on a three bench decision of the Apex court in Baikuntha Nath Das O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 7 :-
2025:KER:91866 and Another v. Chief District Medical Officer, Baripada and Another [1992(2) SCC 299] and the decision in Umedbhai M.Patel's case (cited supra), contended that the principles of natural justice has no application in the context of an order of compulsory retirement and there is no requirement of passing any speaking orders. He argued that all the APARs of the petitioner pertaining to the five years prior to his retirement are very poor and since the authorities and the Tribunal has negatived the contentions of the petitioner, no interference is required in the decision to compulsorily retire the petitioner.
7. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that Annexures A5 and A6 orders have been issued by an Under Secretary. Annexures A5 and A6 orders would only show that they are only communications of the decision taken by the competent authority to compulsorily retire the petitioner and nothing more. A perusal of Annexure R4, the minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee for periodic assessment of performance of employees including the petitioner, would go to show that, after a detailed assessment of performance, the Committee has, in public interest, decided to retire the petitioner. The decision is made on the O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 8 :-
2025:KER:91866 basis of adverse remarks/entries made in petitioner's APARs of 2012- 13,2013-14,2014-15 and 2015-16 and also considering his over all behaviour towards his job/seniors and assessment of his service records. It is further discernible from Annexure R4 that the minutes of the meetings has been placed for consideration and approval of the first respondent and that he has, after examining the recommendations and after satisfying himself, approved it. If so, it cannot be stated that the appropriate authority/first respondent has not formed his opinion regarding public interest, before granting approval. Since the first respondent is the appropriate authority who has approved the compulsory retirement of the petitioner and since Annexures A5 and A6 are only the communications of the said decision taken, it cannot be stated that they are liable to be set aside.
8. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baikuntha Nath Das's case (cited supra), following the decision in Union of India v. J.N.Sinha [(1970) 2 SCC 458] has laid down the following principles regarding the compulsory retirement:
"(i) An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of misbehaviour.
(ii) The order has to be passed by the government on forming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a government servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the subjective satisfaction of the government.O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025
: 9 :-
2025:KER:91866
(iii)Principles of natural justice have no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not mean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the High Court or this Court would not examine the matter as an appellate court, they may interfere if they are satisfied that the order is passed (a) mala fide or (b) that it is based on no evidence or (c) that it is arbitrary --
in the sense that no reasonable person would form the requisite opinion on the given material; in short, if it is found to be a perverse order.
(iv) The government (or the Review Committee, as the case may be) shall have to consider the entire record of service before taking a decision in the matter -- of course attaching more importance to record of and performance during the later years. The record to be so considered would naturally include the entries in the confidential records/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a government servant is promoted to a higher post notwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose their sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit (selection) and not upon seniority.
(v) An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be quashed by a Court merely on the showing that while passing it uncommunicated adverse remarks were also taken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot be a basis for interference."
Following the above decision, the Apex Court in the subsequent decision in Umedbhai M. Patel's case (cited supra) has also laid down the principles relating to compulsory retirement, which reads as follows:
"(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer.
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even uncommunicated entries in the confidential record can O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 10 :-
2025:KER:91866 also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record, that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure."
Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision Union of India and others v. Dulal Dutt [(1993) 2 SCC 179], has also observed thus:
"18.... that an order of a compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment. It is actually a prerogative of the Government but it should be based on material and has to be passed on the subjective satisfaction of the Government. Very often, on enquiry by the Court the Government may disclose the material but it is very much different from the saying that the order should be a speaking order. No order of compulsory retirement is required to be a speaking order."
9. Going by the afore dictums, it can be seen that an order of compulsory retirement is not an order of punishment and it is a prerogative of the Government, which is to be exercised on its subjective satisfaction. These decisions stands to advice that principles of natural justice has no place in the context of an order of compulsory retirement and there need not be any speaking order for the same. The purpose of compulsory retirement is to chop off dead wood and while taking a decision, entries in confidential report are relevant. In the light of the law, as discussed above, it can without any doubt be stated that the contention raised by the appellant O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 11 :-
2025:KER:91866 regarding violation of principles of natural justice has no legs to stand. The decision relied on by the appellant in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.'s case (cited supra) does not relate to a case of compulsory retirement and, therefore, is not applicable in the instant case. The next contention of the appellant that, if an officer was given promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record is a factor in favour of the officer, also has no legs to stand since, as per Annexure A13 OM dated 11.09.2015, the same is applicable only in cases where officers are promoted on the basis of merit and not on the basis of seniority, as in the case of petitioner. In other words, in case of officers, who have been promoted during the last five years on the basis of seniority cum fitness, the previous entries in the ACRs can be taken into account for deciding compulsory retirement. In the instant case, a perusal of the annual performance appraisal reports of the petitioner, which are Annexures R8(a) to R8(d), clearly shows that in all of them there are adverse remarks against the petitioner. If that be so, it cannot be stated that there were no materials available before the Review Committee and thereafter, for the first respondent to reach an opinion that the petitioner has to be compulsorily retired, in public interest.
10. As regards the contention that the Rules prescribes a review to be done six months before the petitioner completing 50 years, O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 12 :-
2025:KER:91866 we are of the view that, even if the same is not done, it will not in any manner affect the decision taken by the respondents to compulsorily retire the petitioner. This is more so, considering the fact that the petitioner has only been retired after the prescribed age and since, no consequence is provided for the violation. .
Ergo, in the light of the afore discussions, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence, we find no merit in this original petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI Judge Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN Judge dpk O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 13 :-
2025:KER:91866 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 110 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A5 ORDER F. NO.12011/1/2019-SSS DATED 25.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure A6 ORDER F. NO.12011/1/2019-SSS DATED 25.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure A7 OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO. 10/46/KLA(S)/2019-
ESTT. DATED 26.09.2019 ISSUED BY THEN 7TH RESPONDENT Annexure A10 LETTER NO.11011/01(02)/2019-SSS DATED 14.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & CPIO (SSS) WITH MINUTES OF MEETING OF REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON 18.09.2019 AND SIGNED ON 23.09.2019 Annexure A12 OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.12011/1/2019- SSS DATED 31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, IN THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A15 LETTER F.NO.12011/1/2019-SSS DATED 15.01.2020 ISSUED BY SENIOR STATISTICAL OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.12012/4(1)/ 2011- SSS DATED 15.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.10/3/2016- ESTT./244 DATED 10.05.2016.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.11012/11/2007-ESTT.(A) DATED
14.12.2007.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER
F.NO.10/47/2016/7TH CPC DATED 05.07.2018 Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM F. NO.
10/46/KLA(S)/2019-ESTT. DATED 26.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED| 15.10.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A11 A TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION DATED 27.11.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM
NO.25013/01/2013-ESTT.A-IV DATED
11.09.2015.
O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025
: 14 :-
2025:KER:91866
Annexure A14 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.01.2020
SUBMITTED TO THE CENTRAL PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER & DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS & PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
Annexure A16 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 23.01.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS & PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION, SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001.
Annexure A17 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM F.NO.24/17/14- 15/ESTT./162 DATED 23.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE THEN 7TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A18 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 18.07.2019.
Annexure A19 A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.11024/8/2012-SSS DATED 03.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure A20 A TRUE COPY OF PART IV OF APAR FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 OF THE APPLICANT .
Annexure A21 A TRUE COPY OF PART IV OF APAR FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 OF THE APPLICANT Annexure A22 A TRUE COPY OF PART IV OF APAR FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 OF THE APPLICANT.
Annexure A23 A TRUE COPY OF PART IV OF APAR FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 OF THE APPLICANT Annexure A24 A TRUE COPY OF PART IV OF APAR FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 OF THE APPLICANT Annexure A25 A TRUE COPY OF PART IV OF APAR FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 OF THE APPLICANT Annexure A26 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER F.NO.10/46/KLA(S)/2017/ESTT./4 DATED 04.06.2019 ADDRESSED BY THE 6 RESPONDENT TO THE UNDER SECRETARY, MOSPI, NEW DELHI Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.18013/2/UFS/2011-12/CHN DATED 25/6/2012 Annexure R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.20024/SSS/KLA/N/2012-CONF-55 DATED 15.11.2012 Annexure R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.18613/2, UFS/2011-12 DATED 24/12/2012 Annexure R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.24/17/09- ESTT-TVM/01 DATED 2/1/2013 O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 15 :-
2025:KER:91866 Annexure R1(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.18013/2/UFS/2011-12 DATED 30/1/2013. Annexure R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.20013/1/G/2013/CHN DATED 11/2/2013 Annexure R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.24/17/09-ESTT-
TVM/4 DATED 12/2/2013 Annexure R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.18013/2/2011-12/UFS/CHN DATED 31/5/2013 Annexure R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.14011/2(C)/2012-13/SE/CHN DATED 16/7/2013 Annexure R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.24/17/09-ESTT-
TVM/1920,1921 DATED 5/8/2013 Annexure R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.16011/2/ (2)AS/2013-14/CHN DATED 25/11/2013 Annexure R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. 16011/2/ (2)AS/2013-14/CHN DATED 27/11/2013 Annexure R1(m) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. 24/17/09-
ESTT-TVM- 654,55,56,57,58 DATED 15/7/2015 Annexure R1(n) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.24/17/14-
15/ESTT./162&163 DATED 23/05/2019
Annexure R3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE HELD ON
06/12/2019
Annexure R4 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE NOTE ON
PREPAGES OF 7TH REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON 18/9/2015 Annexure R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.24/17/14-15/ESTT DATED 22/06/2020 Annexure R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.10/3/KLA(S) 2020-ESTT DATED 23/06/2020 Annexure R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORITY FOR GRATUITY F.NO.032895/132911/10 DATED 01/08/2020 Annexure R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORITY FOR COMMUTATION F.NO.032895/132911/10 DATED 31/07/2020 Annexure R5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORITY FOR GPF LETTER NO.FNSSS*023M64003 DATED 05/08/2020 Annexure R5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 07/08/2020 Annexure R5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORITY FOR PENSION F.NO.032895/132911/10 DATED 04/08/2020 Annexure R5(h) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 04/02/2021 Annexure R5(i) TRUE COPY OF THE BANK PENSION REPORT REF NO.1157/2020-21 DATED 08/02/2021 Annexure R5(j) TRUE COPY OF THE BANK SUMMARY OF PAYMENT OF PENSION PAID TILL 01/01/2021 O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 16 :-
2025:KER:91866 Annexure R6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE ON FILE BEARING NO.12011/1/2019-SSS DT.27/12/2019 Annexure R7 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.21011/02/2015-EST(A-II)-PART II DATED 18/04/2019 Annexure R8(a) TRUE COPY OF APAR FOR THE PERIOD 2012-2013 Annexure R8(b) TRUE COPY OF APAR FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2014 Annexure R8(c) TRUE COPY OF APAR FOR THE PERIOD 2014-2015 Annexure R8(d) TRUE COPY OF APAR FOR THE PERIOD 2015-2016 Annexure A27 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.07.2010 IN
0.A.634/2009.
Annexure A28 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 25.01.2013 TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT Annexure A29 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 14.07.2013 SUBMITTED ON 15.07.2013 BY THE APPLICATION AGAINST ANNEXURE-R1(H) Annexure A30 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.24/ 17/09-
ESTT-TVM/ 1535 DATED 07.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL HEAD.
Annexure A31 TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 18.07.2019 TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT Annexure A32 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.08.2013 SUBMITTED TO THE REGIONAL READ BY THE APPLICANT.
Annexure R9 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN PARA 3 OF DOPT OM NO. 25013/30/85-ESTT. (A) DATED 07.08.1985 Annexure A33 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.05.2013 SUBMITTED TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, KOCHI Annexure A34 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.23/ 16/ 14 DATED 15.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY OFFICE (POD), REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURM Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.00180/294/2020 DATED 06-07-2020 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 06.03.2021 IN O.A. 180/294 OF 2020 Annexure R2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 7TH MEETING OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON 18/9/2019 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 22.06.2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY REPLY STATEMENT DATED 13.12.2022 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED 11.01.2023 O.P(CAT)No.110 of 2025 : 17 :-
2025:KER:91866 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.03.2025 IN O.A. NO. 180/000294/2020 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM