Gujarat High Court
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation vs Rakeshbhai Kamlesh Bhai Dave on 13 June, 2019
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Anant S. Dave, Biren Vaishnav
C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 929 of 2019
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16668 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 929 of 2019
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 930 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16669 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 930 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16669 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 931 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16671 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 931 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16671 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 932 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16672 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 932 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16672 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 933 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16670 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 933 of 2019
In
Page 1 of 16
Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019
C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16670 of 2017
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 934 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16673 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 934 of 2019
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16673 of 2017
==========================================================
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
RAKESHBHAI KAMLESH BHAI DAVE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 13/06/2019
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV) 1 These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise out of a common CAV Judgment dated 31.07.2018. By the judgment under challenge, the learned Single Judge, set aside the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the appellant -
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation by which the higher pay-
scale, which was granted to the respondents herein came to be withdrawn and recovery of the excess amount was sought to be affected.
Page 2 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER2 The facts are not in dispute and therefore it will be appropriate to reproduce the facts as set out by the learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge. They are as under:
"3. All the petitioners joined services under the respondent Municipal Corporation on ad hoc basis and subsequently came to be made permanent on the post of Data Entry Operator in the Computer Department. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16668 of 2017 was inducted as ad hoc employee on 15th May, 2018 and was made permanent on 01st October,1996 as Data Entry Operator. Similarly, petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16669 of 2017 joined respondent Corporation on ad hoc basis on 30th March, 1989 and came to be made permanent with effect from 01st January, 1992. The petitioner of third petition joined the Corporation on ad hoc basis with effect from 18th October, 1985 and made permanent on 01st May, 1986. The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.16671 of 2017 joined the Corporation as ad hoc on 29th May, 1993 and was made permanent as Data Entry Operator on 01st December, 1996. The petitioner of next petition joined the Corporation as ad hoc on 13th August, 1993 and made permanent on 01st December, 1996. The petitioner of last Special Civil Application No.16673 of 2017 joined on 29th May, 1993 and made permanent as Data Entry Operator on 01st December, 1996. 3.1 The State of Gujarat by passing Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 has evolved a scheme called 9-18-27 Scheme, whereunder those employees who get stagnated in service in terms of promotional avenues are allowed the pay-scale of next higher promotional scale in the hierarchy of posts upon completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service. Paragraph 3(3) of the Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 mentions that the higher pay-scale means the pay-scale of the immediate next promotional post. It further mentions that if there is no corresponding scale of promotional post, then the scale mentioned in Schedule I shall apply for the purpose of grant of higher pay-scale.
3.2 It is not in dispute that the respondent Corporation has adopted the said scheme contemplated in the Page 3 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 of the State Government, in toto by order dated 19th February, 2007. The order passed by the Corporation stipulates that those employees who completed nine years of service as on 01st January, 2000 or thereafter would be entitled to the benefit of higher pay-scale of the promotional post as per the said State Government Resolution.
3.3 The petitioners were appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator in the pay-scale of Rs.4000- 6000 with effect from 01st October, 1996 in the Computer Department and came to be promoted to the post of Computer Operator on different dates. For instance, petitioner of first petition was promoted by order dated 27th January, 2015. In the hierarchy of posts in the Computer Department of the respondent Corporation, the next promotional post from the post of Data Entry Operator, is the post of Computer Operator which carry pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000.
3.4 All the petitioners having been appointed on the post of Data Entry Operator, completed their nine years of service on the said post. They became qualified and eligible to be considered for promotion to the next avenue of promotion, that tis the post of Computer Operator. For want of vacancies and such reasons, the petitioners stood stagnated on the post of Data Entry Operator. They were granted, therefore, higher pay- scale of the next promotional post being pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000. For instance, the petitioner who was appointed as Data Entry Operator with effect from 01st October, 1996 stood promoted on the post from 01st October, 2005 when he completed nine years of service. There was a stagnation for all other petitioners in the similar way. They came to be granted the next promotional pay-scale of Rs.5000- 8000, which upon revision as per the Sixth Pay Commission, became the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800.
3.5 In the impugned order which was common in respect of all the petitioners and other similarly placed employees, a view was taken that the cases of same employees were noted who were granted initially the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000 and thereafter came to be granted pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000, and that their placement in the said pay-scale which was erroneous and that they were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.4500- 7000 as first higher pay-scale. The respondent Page 4 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER Corporation therefore withdrew the payscale of Rs.5000- 8000 granted to the petitioners and directed for recovery.
4. The emphatic case of the petitioners is that they were rightly granted the pay-scale of Rs.5000- 8000 which was a pay-scale attached to the next promotional post of Computer Operator. The petitioners produced approved set-up of Computer Department in the respondent Corporation to demonstrate that from the post of Data Entry Operator, net promotion was to the post of Computer Operator. They contended that as per the conditions of Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 applied to the municipal employees, the pay-scale of the next promotional post was granted and accordingly the petitioners were rightly given the pay-scale of Rs.5000- 8000.
4.1 The petitions were contested by the respondent Corporation by filing affidavits-in-reply wherein it was the only contention that the initial pay-scale of the petitioners were Rs.4000-6000 and correspondingly they were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000 and not Rs.5000-8000.
5. It is an uncontroverted aspect that a similarly situated employee one Mukeshbhai Jaswantrai Joshi had an occasion to file Special Civil Application No.14857 of 2010 in which the very order dated 28th October, 2010 which is under challenge in these petitions, was called in question. The said petition was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated 20th June, 2011 quashing and setting aside order dated 28th October, 2010, further directing that fresh order would be passed by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Said Mukeshbhai Jaswantrai Joshi had to again approach this Court by means of Special Civil Application No.14370 of 2011 to set aside the order dated 12th September, 2011 which was published pursuant to the aforesaid directions by this Court in the earlier petition.
5.1 The very controversy as involved in the present petition was addressed by the court in decision in Mukeshbhai Jaswantrai Joshi v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation being Special Civil Application No.14370 of 2011 decided on 16th August, 2016. In paragraph 7 of Mukeshkumar Jaswantrai Joshi (supra), the court Page 5 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER noticed the controversy which is the very controversy in this petition, "7. The issue arising for determination before the Court is a short one, namely, whether the petitioner is entitled to receive the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post, after the completion of nine years of service in the post of Senior Auditor, as per the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 or whether he is entitled to the next higher pay-scale after the pay-scale of the Senior Auditor as per the interpretation of the respondent-Corporation, even though the said pay-scale is not the pay-scale of the next promotional post?"
5.1.1 Thereafter this Court observed that Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 has been adopted by the respondent Municipal Corporation by order dated 19th February, 2007 and it was further observed,
"8. ... ... ... The intention of the State Government in passing the said Government Resolution is to provide an incentive to those employees who are facing stagnation in their careers, due to lack of promotional avenues. It has, therefore, been provided that those employees who have completed 9-18-27 years of service would be granted the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post in the hierarchy of posts. In the present case, the petitioner had completed nine years of service in the post of Senior Auditor. The post of Senior Auditor carries the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000. Undisputably, the next promotional post is that of Deputy Chief Auditor, in the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500. After the completion of nine years in the post of Senior Auditor in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000, the petitioner was placed in the payscale of the next promotional post of Deputy Chief Auditor carrying the pay-scale of Rs.8000-13500, by the order dated 05.04.2007, in consonance with the said Government Resolution."
5.1.2 Clause 3(3) of Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 which unequivocally provide that the pay-scale of next promotional post would be grantable to the employee who has stagnated, was duly noticed by court in the following paragraph.
"9. A perusal of Clause-3(3) of the Government Page 6 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER Resolution dated 16.08.1994, leaves no manner of doubt that after the completion of nine years of service, the employee is required to be placed in the higher pay- scale of next promotional post. The term used is the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post and not just the higher pay-scale. This subtle distinction is crucial to understand the case of the petitioner. It appears that in the respondent-Corporation, between the pay-scale of Senior Auditor, namely, Rs.5500-9000 and that of the Deputy Chief Auditor, which is the next promotional post in the pay-scale of Rs.8000- 13500, there is another pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500. What the respondent-Corporation has done is that it has placed the petitioner in the next higher pay-scale available after the pay-scale of the petitioner's post of Senior Auditor, instead of placing him in the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post as per the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In the view of this Court, this action of the respondent- Corporation is a result of the deliberate misinterpretation on the part of the respondent- Corporation, of the clear and unambiguous recitals in the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, wherein it is clearly stated that after the completion of nine years of service in the post, the employee shall be placed in the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post. Instead, the respondent-Corporation is seeking to place the petitioner on the next higher pay-scale available after the pay-scale of his own post which is, admittedly, not the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post."
5.1.3 The court recorded that Resolution dated 16th August, 1994 was wrongly interpreted in passing the impugned order dated 28th October, 2010.
"10. While wrongly interpreting the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, the respondent- Corporation maintains that it is acting in accordance with the said Government Resolution. Such averment made in the affidavit-in-reply is false and unacceptable. When the object and intent of the State Government by passing the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 is to relieve the hardship of the employees who have put in the specified years of service and who are stagnating due to lack of promotional avenues, it is logical and sensible to place them in the pay-scale of the next promotional post. By placing the petitioner in the pay-Page 7 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER
scale higher to his own, but not in the pay-scale of the next promotional post, the respondent has not only acted against the object and intention of the State Government in framing the Government Resolution, but has also contravened its provisions, after adopting the said Government Resolution in its entirety. The said Government Resolution is applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation. That being the factual position, the respondent-Corporation cannot be permitted to take liberties with the stipulations in the Government Resolution and to distort and misinterpret it, in order to suit its convenience, to the detriment of its employees, such as the petitioner."
5.1.4 The court proceeded to observe and hold, "11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that no cogent reasons have been advanced in support of the decision of the respondent-Corporation, except to reiterate the contents of the earlier order dated 28.10.2010, that has been quashed and set aside by this Court on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no discussion in the impugned order, regarding the interpretation of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent- Corporation, there is an attempt to justify the impugned action of placing the petitioner in the payscale of Rs.6500-10500, instead of Rs.8000-13500, by stating, in paragraph-2, that it has been done as provided under Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. Just because the respondent-Corporation has blindly stated that its impugned action is purportedly as provided under the said Government Resolution, does not make it so. This is clear from a reading of the relevant clauses of the Government Resolution. Clause- 3(3) of the said Government Resolution is as clear as daylight. There is no ambiguity in the manner in which it is worded, which can lead to only one interpretation. The respondent-Corporation has, in the view of this Court tried to deliberately misinterpret the said Government Resolution in order to snatch away the benefit which was rightly granted to the petitioner. To make things worse, the respondent- Corporation has also passed an order of recovery against the petitioner."
5.2 In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) Page 8 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER [(2015) 4 SCC 334] the Supreme Court laid down the principle as to in what circumstances recovery of the benefit already granted could be justified and in what eventuality the benefit already granted could be withdrawn. The principles in Rafiq Masih (supra) were relied on by this Court. In Rafiq Masih (supra), the Apex Court recorded as under.
"It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class- III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group D service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employers right to recover." (Para 19)"
3 The learned Single Judge, therefore, considering a judgment rendered in the case of Mukesh Jashvantray Joshi vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation., in Special Civil Application No. 14370 of 2011, which was in context of the same impugned order, and which had attained finality, allowed the petitions.
Page 9 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER3.1 Holding that the petitioners were entitled to the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post i.e. of Computer Operators in the scale of Rs.5,000 - 8,000/-, and not that of Rs.4,500 - 7,000/- as was the stand of the Corporation, the learned Single Judge directed restoration of the pay-scale and set aside the recovery.
3.2 Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334, in the context of the recovery of the benefit already granted. Following the law in that case, the learned Single Judge directed refund of the recovered amount.
4 Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant, assailed the CAV judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted as under:
(A) According to Mr.Munshaw, respondents were entitled to be given the benefit of placing them in the pay-scale of Rs.4,500 - 7,000/- in accordance with Schedule-I of the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. According to Mr.Munshaw, the next corresponding pay-scale, therefore, was that of Rs.4,500 - 7,000/-.
(B) Mr.Munshaw further submitted that pursuant to the impugned orders challenged before the learned Single Judge Page 10 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER dated 28.10.2010, recoveries were already made. No objections were taken by the respondents who had given an undertaking permitting such recoveries.
(C) The case of Mr.Mukesh Joshi, could not have been relied upon by the learned Single Judge. There is no promotional post so far as the cadre of Data Entry Operator is concerned.
Therefore, the respondents were not entitled to pay-scale of Rs.5,000 - 8,000/-
5 As against that, learned Counsel Mr.Harsheel D Shukla, for the respondents, supported the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted as under:
(A) According to him, the issue as to the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 was settled by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2016 in the case of Mukesh Joshi. In the said judgment, the same principle was under
scrutiny. Interpreting Clause 3(3) of the G.R dated 16.08.1994, the Court had opined that the next higher pay-
scale would be the pay-scale of the next promotional post.
That judgment had attained finality and had been accepted by the Corporation.
(B) The respondents - original petitioners therefore reasonably expected that the appellant -Corporation would extend the same relief and did not challenge the order passed Page 11 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER in the year 2010, waiting for the Corporation to answer the representations made by them.
6 Having considered the respective submissions, what is undisputed is (I) The issue decided by the learned Single Judge in context of the impugned order before him was settled in a case similar to the present one. In the case of Mukesh Joshi (supra), it was an uncontroverted aspect that this Court on interpreting Clause 3(iii) of the G.R. dated 16.08.1994, had categorically observed that it leaves no manner of doubt that after completion of nine years of service the employee is required to be placed in the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post. The term used is the higher pay-scale of the next promotional post and not just the higher pay-scale (ii) the submission of Mr.Munshaw, therefore, that the facts of the case of Mr.Joshi (supra) would not apply, cannot be accepted.
It could not be denied and is so evident from the affidavit-in- reply filed in the Special Civil Application No. 16668 of 2017 that the petitioner of that petition, the respondent in LPA No. 929 of 2019 was promoted to the post of Computer Operator and placed in the pay-scale of pay band of Rs.9,300 - 34,800/-
(pre-revised scale of Rs.5,000 -8,000/-) Admittedly, therefore, the next higher pay-scale of the promotional post was Rs.5,000 - 8,000/- and not Rs.4,500 - 7,000/- as contended by Page 12 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER Mr.Munshaw (iii) Admittedly, therefore the principle of law and the applicability of facts so decided in the case of Mukeshbhai Joshi (supra) squarely applied to the present petitioners - respondents herein. Fairly conceded, it is by Mr.Munshaw, that the judgment in the case of Mukesh Joshi (supra) attained finality.
Obviously therefore, the respondents have their case squarely covered by the decision in the case of Mukesh Joshi (supra) and therefore , in our opinion, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in quashing the impugned orders of reduction and recovery.
7 In the context of the facts herein above however, there are two aspects which will not entitle, the respondents to a relief, similar in nature i.e. refund of recovered amount to that granted in the case of Mukesh Joshi (supra).
7.1 Firstly, it has come on record by way of an affidavit in Special Civil Application No. 16668 of 2017, that the respondent in LPA No. 929 of 2019 namely Shri Rakesh K Dave was already promoted to the post of Computer Operator with effect from 17.01.2015. The respondents, approached this Court by filing a petition for a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.10.2010. The petition was filed in September, 2017, almost seven years after the impugned order. As is Page 13 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER evident in the case of the respondent in LPA No. 929 of 2019, he only approached the Court by filing SCA No. 16668 of 2017 two and a half years after having been promoted to the higher post in January, 2015.
8 In view of these facts, we hold that the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 16668 of 2017 i.e. the respondent in LPA 929 of 2019 is not entitled to the discretionary relief of refund of the recovered amount and also the benefit of the higher pay-scale of Rs.5,000 - 8,000/-
as if the impugned order dated 28.10.2010 is quashed primarily because, he having been promoted to the higher post in the year 2015. Accordingly, Letters Patent Appeal No. 929 of 2019 is allowed.
9 Secondly, having considered the question to a limited extent in the case of the petitioner of SCA No. 16668 of 2017 -
respondent of LPA No. 929 of 2019, we need to mould the relief in case of the remaining five petitioners / respondents in LPA Nos. 930 to 934 of 2019. In their cases, we hold and direct that the respondents shall be entitled to the benefit of the higher pay-scale of Rs.5,000 - 8,000/-, pursuant to the quashing of the order dated 28.10.2010, since admittedly they Page 14 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER approached this Court more than seven years after the order was passed and the recovery was already effected.
Admittedly, there was a delay of more than seven years in their approaching this Court. Admittedly, they were fence -
sitters and there was no justification for them to wait for the outcome in the case of Mukesh Joshi (supra). They are, though therefore entitled to the benefit of equal treatment as in the case of Mukesh Joshi (supra), it is clarified that because of the delay in their approaching this Court and even as so stated by the learned advocate for the respondents, that they are not so promoted on the higher post, such respondents of the LPAs.
Nos 930 of 2019 to 934 of 2019 shall be entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.5,000 - 8,000/- as revised, only from the date of the judgment i.e. 31.07.2018.
9.1 In the case of these respondents also, since the amounts have already been recovered and there had been a delay on their part in approaching this Court, they will not be entitled to the refund of the amount by the appellant - Corporation.
10 In view of the aforesaid reasonings, the LPA No. 929 of 2019 is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge in respect of that respondent is quashed and set aside.
Page 15 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019 C/LPA/929/2019 ORDER11 LPA Nos. 930 to 934 of 2019 are partly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that, the respondents shall be entitled to the benefit of the higher pay-scale of Rs.5,000 - 8,000/- as revised from time to time with consequential benefits only from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge i.e. 31.07.2018. The appellant - Corporation shall not be required to refund the amount already recovered pursuant to the impugned orders dated 28.10.2010.
12 It is clarified that the order in the case of LPA No.930 of 2019 to 934 of 2019 shall not be treated as a precedent. Civil Applications accordingly stands disposed of.
(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) Bimal Page 16 of 16 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 03 08:31:56 IST 2019