Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. Neelakant vs Managing Director on 11 June, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11 T H DAY OF JUNE, 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.
W.P.NO.100648/2018 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN :
SRI B. NEELAKANT,
AGE: 47 YERAS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. YALAKKISHET TAR COLONY,
KUMARESHWAR NAGAR,
DHARWAD. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUNI L S.DESAI AND
SRI B.V.SOMAPUR, ADVOCATES)
AND :
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
DHARWAD, HAVERI, GADAG AND
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICTS,
CO-OP. MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES
UNION LTD., LAKAMANAHALLI,
DHARWAD.
2. UPA LOKAYUKTA-I ,
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU.
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDI ,
BENGALURU.
3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR,
ENQUIRIES-4,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S.BUILDING,
:2:
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR BEEDI ,`
BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.A.SONDUR FOR SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATES)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO:
a. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED REPORT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
IN ENQUIRY NO.LOK/ARE-4/INQ-50/ 2010ARE-4 DATED
29.07.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, SO FAR AS IT RELATES
TO THE PETITIONER AND THE RECOMMENDATION
SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN LETTER
NO.LOK/INQ/ 14A/ 50/ 2010/ARE-4 DATED 01.08.2017
VIDE ANNEXURE-B SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
PETITIONER AND THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1 IN NO.31/ADALIT-2/ 4333/ 2018 DATED
09.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
b. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO REINSTATE T HE PETITIONER IN
HIS POST AND TO GIVE HIM ALL HIS SERVICE
BENEFITS.
c. ISSUE ANY SUCH OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUST ICE AND EQUITY.
d. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
ORDER BEARING NO.DHAHAHI /ADMINISTRATION/
Y.K.31/ 2010/4846 DATED 11.02.2010 PASSED BY THE
1 S T RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-J, AS ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND ONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
:3:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner has sought for following reliefs. a. Issue writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned report submitted by respondent No.3 in enquiry No.LOK/ARE-4/INQ-
50/2010 dated 29.07.2017 vide Annexure- A, so far as it relates to the petitioner and the recommendation submitted by respondent No.2 in letter No.LOK/INQ/14A/ 50/2010/ARE-4 dated 01.08.2017 vide Annexure-B so far as it relates to the petitioner and the order passed by respondent No.1 in No.31/adalit-
2/4333/2018 dated 09.01.2018 vide Annexure-C. b. Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to reinstate the petitioner in his post and to give him all his service benefits.
c. Issue any such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
d. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order bearing No.DhaHaHi/Administration /Y.K.31 /2010 / 4846 dated 11.02.2010 passed by the 1 s t respondent as per Annexure-J, as arbitrary, illegal and one :4: without authority of law, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
Petitioner came to be appointed as a helper in the year 1988 at Dharwad Co-Operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as "Milk Union" for short) and later was promoted as Dairy Operator Grade-4 in the year 1993 and was working in the said grade. In the year 2013 he was dismissed from service on the ground that he had been convicted in a criminal case i.e., in Spl.(Lok) C.C.No.1/2007 by the District and Sessions Judge, Haveri.
3. On an appeal being filed in Crl.A.No.2700/2013 challenging said judgment of conviction, petitioner came to be acquitted by judgment dated 13.12.2013 rendered in Crl.A.No.2700/2013. Hence, petitioner submitted a representation to the milk union enclosing copy of :5: the order passed in Crl.A.No.2700/2013 with a prayer to reinstate him into service and to grant backwages with all consequential benefits. In the meanwhile, petitioner raised a dispute under section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1957 in No.JRL/B/DAP/10/2012-13 challenging his dismissal from service, which came to be allowed and petitioner was ordered to be reinstated into service by order dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure-D).
4. On account of inaction on the part of 1 s t respondent - milk union in not considering the representation, petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.110868/ 2015 (S-RES) (Annexure-E) by reiterating his prayer made in the representations namely seeking reinstatement and also prayed with 1st respondent-Milk Union to extend all service benefits from date of dismissal. Said writ petition received favorable attention by this Court, which culminated in writ petition being disposed of by order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-F), :6: whereunder learned Single Judge observed to the following effect:
"9. Needless to say, merely by reinstating the petitioner, the respondent has not carried out all the directions issued by the learned Joint Registrar.
Therefore, this Court directs the
respondent to implement the directions
issued by the learned Joint Registrar within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, this order is not implemented within one month's time, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a contempt petition against the respondent before this Court."
5. Thereafter by communication dated 21.01.2016 respondent is said to have paid a sum of Rs.8,13,697/- by cheque in favour of petitioner in compliance with the direction issued in W.P.No.110868/2015 (Annexure-F). Petitioner not being satisfied with the amount paid and contending he is entitled to receive in all a sum of Rs.32.00 lakhs and still balance of 25 lakhs is to be paid by :7: 1st respondent Milk Union, filed W.P.No.107677/2017, which came to be disposed of by observing that petitioner as well can initiate contempt proceedings if earlier writ issued in W.P.No.110868/2015 has not been complied. Hence, alleging there has been willful non compliance of the direction issued in W.P.No.110868/2015 (Annexure-F) petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in C.C.C.No.100190/2017 against Milk Union, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay.
6. Petitioner filed one more writ petition in W.P.No.111119/2017 against 1 s t respondent - milk union seeking direction to pay his balance salary arrears of about 25 lakhs with interest and other benefits as per the order passed by Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and same is said to be still pending. However, it would be apt and appropriate to observe at this juncture itself that in the light of present writ petition having been filed on account of subsequent turn of events, prayer :8: sought for in W.P.No.111119/2017 may not survive for consideration and it is for petitioner to take appropriate steps in that regard.
7. Be that as it may. In the light of charge sheet being filed against petitioner in Spl.(Lok) C.C.No.1/2017 by the Lokayukta Police, a report came to be submitted by 2nd respondent under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for short "Act") recommending for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against both the accused in criminal case i.e., petitioner and 1st accused Sri S.L.Manjunath, on the premise they have committed a serious misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 vide Annexure-H. On receipt of said report, 1 s t respondent - milk union passed an order on 11.02.2010 (Annexure-J) resolving to hold an enquiry against petitioner and said enquiry came to be entrusted to Karnataka Upa-Lokayukta, Bengaluru. Accordingly, enquiry came to be held by 3 r d respondent after framing charge and recording :9: evidence of the witnesses and by its report dated 29.07.2017 held that disciplinary authority has satisfactorily proved the charge leveled against both the delinquent employees and held that they have committed a misconduct as enumerated under Rule 3(1)(i) to (iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 vide enquiry report dated 29.07.2017. In the light of recommendation made by 2nd respondent to 1st respondent to impose penalty of compulsory retirement on DGO-2 (petitioner herein) by communication dated 01.08.2017, 1 s t respondent - milk union by order dated 09.01.2018 (Annexure-C) compulsorily retired petitioner from service. This is under challenge in this writ petition.
8. We have heard the arguments of Shri Sunil S.Desai learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Shri S.A.Sondur learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.L.Patil, for respondent No.1 and Sri Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. : 10 :
9. It is the contention of Shri Sunil S.Desai appearing for petitioner that very issue of entrustment of enquiry by 1 s t respondent - milk union to 2 n d respondent is contrary to the byelaws / regulations of 1 s t respondent - milk union in as much as 1st respondent - milk union has not adopted the CCA Rules and as such, it is contended that entrustment of enquiry to Lokayukta is one without jurisdiction and same is liable to be quashed. He would elaborate his submissions by contending that even on merits, petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for, on account of charge framed in the domestic enquiry as well as charge framed by criminal court are one and the same and petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case for identical and similar charge by exonerating him after appreciation of entire evidence, which is an Honourable acquittal on merits and as such no inference could have been drawn in the domestic enquiry on the basis of preponderance and probabilities of the case, to : 11 : arrive at a conclusion that charge leveled against petitioner is proved. Hence, drawing our attention to the enquiry report as well as order passed in Crl.A.No.2700/2017, he would pray for allowing the writ petition and granting the prayers sought for in the writ petition.
10. Per contra Sri S.A.Sondur, learned counsel appearing on behalf Sri K.L.Patil as well as learned counsel Sri Mallikarjunswamy B Hiremath appearing for respondent No.2 and 3 in chorus would submit that issue regarding jurisdiction ought to have been raised at the first instance and petitioner having not done so, it is too late in the day to raise such an issue. Particularly, when much water has flown down the bridge, namely witnesses have been examined, cross-examined and petitioner himself having submitted to the jurisdiction of enquiry, he cannot be heard to contend that issue of jurisdiction is to be considered, adjudicated and answered in this writ petition. On merits he would submit this court in exercise of power vested under : 12 : Article 226 or Article 227 of Constitution of India, would not act as an appellate court and sit in judgment over the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer and/or substitute its view to that of the enquiry officer. He would further contend when two views are possible, view taken by the enquiry officer is not to be disturbed until and unless it is palpably erroneous, contrary to the records and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer being contrary to the undisputed evidence. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
11. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it requires to be noticed at the outset that the issue of jurisdiction, if it goes to the root of the matter can be considered at any stage. Consent does not confer jurisdiction. However, in the matter of domestic enquiry, where the authority of the officer holding enquiry or the entrustment of such enquiry by the disciplinary authority requires to be raised, it should be at the first instance, in as much as : 13 : lacuna or defect, if any, can be set right at the initial stage itself and Courts would be in a position to mould the reliefs accordingly keeping in mind the balance of equities and also ensuring that injustice is not caused to either of the parties. However, if a party to the lis, were to sleep over his rights and wake up from his/her slumber at a later point of time and contend that there was no jurisdiction for the authority to enquire, it would be too late in the day to put the clock back.
12. It is trite law that issue of jurisdiction which is the foundation for the proceedings to go on would be a pivotal issue in any given case. It is one thing to say that, there was lack of jurisdiction by the authority to hold an enquiry and it is another thing to say that the authority committed a jurisdictional error. They are two different and distinct aspects. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.V.Nirmala Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation and others reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 639 has held that an : 14 : authority may lack inherent jurisdiction in which case the order passed would be a nullity but it may commit a jurisdictional error while exercising jurisdiction. The legal rights conferred upon the employees in this behalf may be different under different statutes. A legal admission (sic-advisor) under the common law is not debarred from acting as an enquiry officer.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RATTANLAL SHARMA VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE DR.HARI RAM (CO-EDUCATION) HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND OTHERS reported in (1993) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 10 has held that if the plea of lack of jurisdiction though not specifically raised before the subordinate tribunals or the administrative and quasi-judicial bodies, is raised before the High Court in the writ proceeding for the first time and the plea goes to the root of the question and which is based on admitted and uncontroverted facts, it does not require any further investigation into : 15 : question of fact, then High Court would be justified in entertaining such plea, as it would be the anxiety of the Constitutional Courts to do complete justice which is the paramount consideration. Hence, it is only desirable that a litigant should not be shut out from raising such plea which goes to the root of the lis involved.
14. We reiterate that there cannot be waiver or estoppel against statute. Keeping this sound principle in mind when the facts on hand are examined, it would disclose that entrustment of holding a domestic enquiry to 2nd respondent against the petitioner by the 1st respondent-Union as per the order dated 11.02.2010 is based on the report of 2 n d respondent dated 07.11.2008 which came to be issued under Section 12 (3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act and it would be apt and appropriate to extract the recommendations made by 2 n d respondent to 1 s t respondent and it reads: : 16 :
"Therefore, it is hereby
recommended to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against the respondents by following the procedure prescribed for imposing major penalty and to entrust the enquiry to this authority under Rule 14 (A) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957".
15. This recommendation in the form of direction issued by 2 n d respondent has perforced 1st respondent to entrust the enquiry against petitioner to 2nd respondent by order dated 11.02.2010 (Annexure-J).
16. Records on hand would disclose, that petitioner at an undisputed point of time was working as Diary Operator Grade - 4 at Milk Union. Thus, it has to be examined as to whether an employee of 1 s t respondent - union is governed by any Rules framed by 1 s t respondent - union in the matter of initiating disciplinary proceedings being taken against its erring employees. : 17 :
17. 1 s t respondent Milk Union has a separate set of rules/bye laws governing the disciplinary proceedings, the copy of which was made available to us during the course of hearing and this fact is not seriously disputed by the respondents also. In fact, a memo came to be filed by 1 s t respondent - union on 19.03.2019 stating thereunder that as per Rule 80.0 of Service Rules, 2001, Milk Union would rely upon Karnataka Civil Services Rules, only in case where there is no specific Rule in its service regulations. It is also categorically stated thereunder that it has not adopted Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules for being applied to its employees. In other words, there is a clear admission by 1st respondent - union to the effect that its own set of regulations govern the disciplinary proceedings of its employees. It is also admitted that Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 is not adopted by 1 s t respondent - union. : 18 :
18. However, much reliance has been placed by respondents on Rule/Regulation 79 of Chapter XVI which relates to Enquiry and levy of penalty on the employees of 1 s t respondent Milk Union, to contend that disciplinary authority of 1 s t respondent is empowered to entrust conducting of such enquiry against an employee to the 2 n d respondent-Upa- Lokayukta. However, we are not inclined to accept the said contention, inasmuch as entrustment of conducting an enquiry to the lokayukta by the disciplinary authority under Section 14A of Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1957 would only be under two contingencies namely:
(i) where the employee is a government servant; or
ii) where the Karnataka Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules has been adopted by the employer, where such employee is working:
19. Clause-79(4)(ii) of the Regulation-2000 relied upon by respondents reads:
: 19 :
"2) ²¸ÀÄÛ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ GzÉÆåÃVAiÉƧâ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀĪÀðvÀð£É CxÀªÁ zÀÄ£ÀðqÀvÉAiÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ ¸ÀvÀåvÉAiÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ DzsÁgÀUÀ½ªÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀlÖ°è, vÁ£Éà CAxÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɸÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ E®èªÉà CzÀgÀ ¸ÀvÁå¸ÀvÀåvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä M§â ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ."
20. A plain reading of the above clause would disclose that in case of disciplinary authority is of the view that an employee is to be proceeded against for enquiring into allegation made against such employee, then in such an event disciplinary authority can enquire into such allegations by itself or entrust such enquiry to be conducted by an enquiring officer. Said clause does not even remotely indicate that for conducting domestic enquiry against its employee same can be entrusted to Upa-Lokayukta.
21. There is no dispute to the fact that petitioner is an employee of the 1 s t respondent union. In other words, it is an admitted fact that petitioner is an employee of the Milk Union. 1st : 20 : respondent Milk Union has not adopted C.C.A. Rules which would govern the employees of Milk Union for conducting enquiry. On the other hand, 1st respondent - Milk Union is having its own, separate and distinct, bye law/service regulations which would govern its employees relating to the manner in which an enquiry is to be conducted against its employees.
22. Co-ordinate Bench under similar circumstances, in the matter of M.P.Jaishankar vs. The State of Karnataka rendered on 01.09.2014 in W.P. Nos.1983-86/2014 (S-DE) has held that when separate service regulations are framed by KIADB (4th respondent therein) and said authority having not adopted C.C.A. Rules, question of entrustment of enquiry to Upa Lokayukta by KIADB would not arise.
23. Similarly, in the instant case, the service regulations (£ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2000) would govern the employees of 1st respondent - : 21 : Milk Union and as such, the very entrustment of enquiry by 1st respondent to respondent Nos.2 and conducting of enquiry against petitioner by respondent No.3 is without jurisdiction and this goes to the very jurisdiction or root of the matter and as such, all proceeding culminating in termination of respondent from service by impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
24. In the ordinary course, we would have remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent for conducting enquiry afresh, as per the extant regulations governing its employees. However, we desist from doing so for reasons more than one. Firstly, petitioner herein was tried by a criminal court for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and after trial both accused persons came to be convicted by judgment dated 11.06.2013 in Special (Lok) Case No.1/2007 and same was set aside by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.2700/2013 dated 13.12.2013 by : 22 : recording a clear finding to the effect that prosecution had failed to prove not only acceptance of money by petitioner, but also the trap itself. The finding so recorded by the Appellate Court reads:
"21. As regards the 2nd accused, it is noticed his presence is also doubtful.
The genesis of action against 1st
accused is alleged demand which we
have noticed is not proved. Secondly payment of money to the 2nd accused even if proved, does not prove any nexus between the 1st accused and 2nd accused. There is no material to show in what capacity 1st accused and 2nd accused were involved. Is it in official capacity as peon and officer of the Corporation, or as accomplices? Mere statement that 1st accused asked the 2nd accused to collect money and 2nd accused collected the money cannot establish the proof that is required to establish the charge under Section 7 of the Act.
22. xxx xxx
23. So far as payment of bait money to 2nd accused is concerned, it is belled by the accused on the basis that the photographer - PW9 A.D.Barki has deposed he photographed the entire trap : 23 : and washing of hands of 2nd accused between 11:30 a.m. till 2:30 p.m. whereas the trap mahazar shows the trap was conducted between 04:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Prosecution has not been able to clarify the difference in the timing which leads to the reasonable conclusion that mahazars are concocted and the entire allegation of trap having been conducted is concocted. This would dispel all the evidence regarding the alleged payment of money to the 2nd accused and hand-washing showing coloration as not proved."
25. It is also submitted at the bar that accused No.1 (Sri S.L.Manjunath) pursuant to the order of acquittal has already received retiral benefits and no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him by his employer.
26. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has filed an affidavit of the petitioner stating thereunder that common enquiry was held by 3 r d respondent against him and another delinquent employee Sri S.L.Manjunath (who was accused No.1 in criminal case) and on the basis of enquiry report : 24 : conducted by 3rd respondent, a recommendation came to be made by 2 n d respondent to the employer of Sri S.L.Manjunath to impose penalty of withholding 50% of pension and thereafter no specific order has been passed by the State Government withholding 50% pension payable to Sri S.L.Manjunath as recommended by 2nd respondent-Upalokayukta and entire pension is said to have been released. The said affidavit is placed on record.
27. This Court also being conscious of the fact that criminal proceedings as well as domestic enquiry stands on a different footing in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2015 (3) SCC 101 and 2013 (1) SCC 598, we do not propose to remit the matter back to the 1st respondent for conducting de nova enquiry, as it may not yield any better result, particularly in the background of appellate court having already opined that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt or in other : 25 : words, having acquitted the petitioner after a full fledged trial and the charge imputed against the petitioner being same, similar and identical to the charge framed in the domestic enquiry, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to 1st respondent - union to conduct enquiry afresh.
28. It is also necessary to observe the fact of petitioner having raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, inasmuch as, he being an employee of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act has the benefit of an award in his favour which has reached finality and in other words there has been no challenge to said award by any of the respondents and thereby it has reached finality. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.
: 26 :
29. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed,
ii) Order bearing No. DhaHaHi/ Administration/Y.K.31/2010/4846 dated 11.02.2010 passed by 1st respondent vide Annexure-J entrusting enquiry being conducted by Upa-Lokayuktha is hereby set aside as it contrary to the Service Regulations, 2000 of 1st respondent-Milk Union and such entrustment is without jurisdiction,
iii) Consequently, report dated 29.07.2017 vide Annexure-A submitted by respondent No.3 insofar as it relates to petitioner and recommendation made by 2nd respondent to 1st respondent by communication dated 01.08.2017 vide Annexure-B insofar as it relates to petitioner as also order dated : 27 : 09.01.2018 passed by 1st respondent -
Milk Union vide Annexure-C
compulsorily retiring petitioner from
service of 1 s t respondent-Milk Union are hereby quashed,
iv) A writ of mandamus is issued to 1st respondent to reinstate petitioner and to pay all service benefits and all consequential benefits as per order dated 17.04.2014 (Annexure-D)
v) No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE Em / Jm/