Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Sugandha Devi vs East Central Railway on 10 September, 2025
1 OA 465/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
PATNA
O.A. 050/00465/2021
Reserved on: 26.08.2025
Pronounced on: 10.09.2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member
In the matter of:
Ashok Kumar (Dead), Son of Late Subedar
Substituted by
Sugandha Devi,
Wife of Late Ashok Kumar, resident of Village- Haridaspur,
PO- Khagaul, PS- Khagaul, District- Patna and Present
Address- Qr. No. 47-D, Railway Colony, Jahanabad, PS-
Jahanabad, District- Patna.
.............Applicant
VS.
1. Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur-
844101.
3. The Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Hazipur-844101.
4. The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Fairley
Place, 17, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata- 700001.
5. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Danapur Division, Danapur- 800012.
6. The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway,
Asansol Division, Asansol, Burdhaman- 713304.
7. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central
Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur- 800012.
........ Respondents
For The Applicant(s): Mr. S. K. Bariar, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey, ASC
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone=
d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f
9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar,
SERIALNUMBER=
b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a
dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL
LAL
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2 OA 465/2021
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"(A) The applicant humbly prays that Office Order No. E/Court Cell/ OA No. 121/2021 dated 13.07.2021 (Annexure-A/16) may be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
(B) The applicant further prays that the respondents may be directed to place him under Railway Service (Pension) Rules 1993 in pursuance of RBE No. 28/2020 read with Government of India, Department of Pension & PW (B), OM No. 57/04/2019-P & PW (B) dated 17.02.2020.
(C) Any relief / reliefs may be granted to the applicant for ends of the justice."
2. For the sake of clarity, facts in the case as stated by the applicant in the OA, are delineated herein under:-
The Railway Board vide letter dated 26.08.1977 had decided that Labours of Quasi Administrative Offices be treated as Casual Labours for the purpose of regularisation against Group-D posts. Pursuant thereto, the Chief Personnel Officer [IR], Eastern Railway, Kolkata issued directions vide Office Order dated 26.05.1994 and again on 14.12.1999 to submit details of eligible casual labours of Quasi Administrative Offices for screening for absorption. In compliance thereto, the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway submitted details of eligible casual labours (including the present applicant's deceased husband) for Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 3 OA 465/2021 regularisation, which was placed before Railway Board for approval.
Vide letter dated 11.06.2001, the Railway Board approved 67 casual labours for regularisation. Out of these, 21 casuals were from Danapur Division, including the applicant's deceased husband. Chief Personnel Officer [IR], Eastern Railway, Kolkata vide letter dated 12.06.2001 directed the Divisional Railway Managers concerned to conduct screening and regularise the said 67 casuals. Accordingly, the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur issued a list of 21 casuals including the applicant's deceased husband vide letter dated 03.01.2002 for screening to be held on 18.01.2002. However, the screening was cancelled because of litigation filed by 08 unapproved casuals (OA No. 40/2002, Siya Ram & Others vs. UOI).
Instead of allowing those 08 unapproved casuals to participate in the screening as per interim order dated 16.01.2002, the respondents cancelled the scheduled screening. Later, screening was conducted on 19.02.2003 only for the approved 21 casuals, including the applicant's deceased husband who were duly empanelled. Due to interim order of "status quo" passed on 24.02.2003 in OA No. 40/2002, the appointment process of the 21 empanelled candidates of Danapur Division remained pending, though other divisions such as Asansol completed screening in 2001 itself and regularised their candidates.
Digitally signed by SONALI LALSONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 4 OA 465/2021 OA No. 40/2002 filed by 8 unapproved casuals was eventually dismissed on 20.10.2004, and the dismissal was confirmed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court on 07.12.2005 in CWJC No. 15483/2004. Only thereafter, the 21 empanelled candidates of Danapur, including the applicant's deceased husband, were finally appointed on 08.08.2005. All other candidates from the same approved panel of 67 casuals were regularised in 2001-02 itself and were granted the benefit of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules, 1993 (Old Pension Scheme). However, the applicant's deceased husband and 20 others of Danapur Division were appointed only in August 2005 and were thus placed under the New Pension Scheme (NPS).
Government of India, Department of Pension & PW issued OM dated 17.02.2020 {No. 57/04/2019-P&PW(B)} allowing employees recruited against vacancies advertised/notified prior to 01.01.2004 to switch to the Old Pension Scheme. The Railway Board adopted the same through RBE No. 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020. The applicant's deceased husband exercised his option under the above OM and RBE, and the Head of Office duly forwarded the same vide letter dated 09.05.2020. However, his request was rejected by the respondents through a non-speaking order dated 13.07.2021 merely on the ground that his selection was not finalized prior to 01.01.2004.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 OA 465/2021 3.1 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant's deceased husband belonged to the same panel of 67 approved casuals issued by Railway Board vide letter dated 11.06.2001. While others from this panel were regularised in 2001- 02 and granted Old Pension Scheme, only the 21 candidates of Danapur, including the applicant's deceased husband, were denied the same benefit. Such discrimination is arbitrary. 3.2 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the delay in appointment was entirely due to non-compliance of interim order dated 16.01.2002 by the respondents and the resultant litigation.
The applicant's deceased husband was already screened and empanelled on 19.02.2003, i.e., prior to the introduction of NPS on 01.01.2004. It is a settled principle of law that delay caused due to administrative lapses or interim orders of courts cannot be used to the detriment of employees.
3.3 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as per para 3(ii) of the OM dated 17.02.2020, employees whose recruitment process was initiated prior to 01.01.2004 are entitled to Old Pension Scheme, even if appointment was made later. Since Railway Board had approved the panel on 11.06.2001 and the applicant's deceased husband was screened on 19.02.2003, his recruitment process clearly commenced prior to 01.01.2004.
3.4 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the disposal order dated 13.07.2021 rejecting applicant's deceased husband's Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 OA 465/2021 option is arbitrary, cryptic, and devoid of reasoning. It simply states that selection was not finalized before 01.01.2004, without considering the fact that screening was conducted in 2003 and delay in issuing appointment letter was solely due to respondents' lapses and interim orders of court.
3.5 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have extended Old Pension Scheme benefits to vocational course students who only passed examinations prior to 01.01.2004 though their appointments were subsequent. Denial of similar treatment to the applicant's deceased husband, despite his case being stronger, is discriminatory and arbitrary. 3.6 Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that judicial precedents have held that where recruitment/selection process commenced prior to 01.01.2004, appointees cannot be deprived of Old Pension Scheme merely because the formal appointment order was issued after 01.01.2004.
4.1 Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's deceased husband was initially engaged by the Managing Committee of a Quasi-Administrative Office, namely V.N. Sharma Institute, Danapur, which was a recreation club managed by a private body for railway employees. All wages and remuneration were paid by the private Managing Committee and not by the Railway Administration. Thus, there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the Railways and Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 OA 465/2021 the applicant. Staff of Quasi-Administrative Offices cannot, therefore, be treated as casual labourers of the Railway Administration. The contention of the applicant's deceased husband declaring himself as a casual labourer is misconceived and untenable.
4.2 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that vide RBE No.103/2000 dated 30.05.2000, the Railway Board allowed, as a one-time relaxation, consideration of absorption of only those staff of Quasi-Administrative Offices/Organisations who had been continuously on roll for at least three years as on 10.06.1997 and were still on roll, subject to educational qualifications, age-limit, and after exhausting Live Casual Labour Registers. These directions were circulated by the CPO (IR)/Eastern Railway vide letter dated 12.06.2001 to all Divisions including Danapur.
Screening of such staff was to be conducted strictly as per Railway Board's directives, not as casual labour absorption.
4.3 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that screening was initially scheduled on 18.01.2002. However, due to interim order dated 16.01.2002, prior to the scheduled date for screening, passed in O.A. No.40/2002 (Siya Ram & Ors. vs. U.O.I. & Ors.), the respondents were directed to allow 8 applicants provisionally to appear in the screening but restrained from publishing their results without leave of the Tribunal. Owing to this order, the screening could not be completed on 18.01.2002 and had to be postponed.
Digitally signed by SONALI LALSONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 OA 465/2021 The process was delayed due to judicial constraints and not because of any mala fide on the part of the respondents. Although screening was held on 19.02.2003, the result could not be declared due to the Tribunal's interim order of 16.01.2002 and subsequent status-quo order dated 24.02.2003, which remained operative till disposal of O.A. No.40/2002 on 20.10.2004.
The Tribunal dismissed O.A. No.40/2002 on merits holding there was no employer-employee relationship. The Hon'ble High Court also affirmed this view in CWJC No.15483/2004 on 07.12.2005, observing that no writ could be issued to perpetuate an illegality. Since the judicial orders restrained the Railway Administration, the delay was beyond its control. But for such orders, the results would have been declared prior to 31.12.2003.
The applicant's deceased husband cannot derive any advantage from such delay caused by pending litigation.
4.4 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as per Para-4 of the DOP&T O.M. dated 17.02.2020 (adopted by Railways vide RBE No.28/2020 dated 03.03.2020), only those candidates whose results for recruitment were declared before 01.01.2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003 are eligible for coverage under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 / Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. In the applicant's deceased husband's case, the result of screening held on 19.02.2003 was not declared before 01.01.2004 due to subsisting interim orders of the Tribunal. Thus, Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9 OA 465/2021 the condition prescribed in O.M. dated 17.02.2020 and RBE No.28/2020 is not satisfied.
4.5 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's deceased husband's case is not comparable to cases of vocational course trainees or other categories where results were declared before 01.01.2004. The applicant's interpretation that initiation of recruitment before 01.01.2004 is sufficient is wholly misconceived. The O.M. dated 17.02.2020 categorically mandates declaration of result before the cut-off date. 4.6 Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance with the order of this Tribunal in O.A. No.121/2021, the applicant's deceased husband's representation was reconsidered. Vide reasoned order dated 13.07.2021, his claim was rejected on the ground that the selection process could not be finalized before 01.01.2004. This rejection was in conformity with O.M. dated 17.02.2020, RBE No.28/2020, and judicial pronouncements.
4.7 In conclusion, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's deceased husband was never a Railway casual labourer, his absorption process could not be finalized before 01.01.2004 due to subsisting court orders, and he is not covered under the conditions of RBE No.28/2020. Hence, the instant Original Application is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit and not sustainable in law.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 OA 465/2021
5. In reply to the Written Statement filed by the respondents, the applicant filed her supplementary rejoinder rebutting the claim of the respondents as under:-
5.1 Railway Board has issued RBE No. 41/2023 dated 10.03.2023 (Railway Board Letter No. D-43/12/2016-F(E)III) adopting the Office Memorandum No. 57/05/2021-P&PW(B) dated 03.03.2023 of the Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare, Government of India. By virtue of this circular, employees who were otherwise covered under the National Pension Scheme (NPS) were allowed to exercise an option to be governed under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993/Old Pension Scheme, subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein.
5.2 Since the deceased husband of the applicant fulfilled the eligibility criteria under RBE No. 41/2023, she submitted a representation/option on 21.08.2023 requesting coverage under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. The said representation has already been forwarded by the Head of the Office to the competent authority and the matter is still pending final disposal at the Zonal Office, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 5.3 That the deceased husband of the applicant has strong and valid grounds for being covered under para-4 of OM No. 57/05/2021-P&PW(B) dated 03.03.2023. The recruitment process of the husband of the applicant had in fact commenced with the Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 11 OA 465/2021 screening examination held on 19.02.2003. However, issuance of appointment order was delayed solely due to an interim order dated 24.02.2003 passed in OA No. 40/2002 [Siya Ram & Others vs UOI]. Hence, for the purpose of applicability of RBE No. 41/2023 read with the above OM, the case of the husband of the applicant squarely falls within its ambit. The deceased husband of the applicant also comes within the scope of para-3(ii) of DoP&PW letter dated 17.02.2020 read with RBE No. 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020, which specifically provided that employees whose appointments were delayed beyond 01.01.2004 due to administrative reasons or court cases, despite having been selected earlier, shall be covered under the Old Pension Scheme.
6. Heard rival contentions of the parties and perused material on record. I have considered the matter in its entirety and come to the following conclusion:
6.1 The husband of the applicant was one of the 67 approved casual labourers whose names were duly recommended by the Railway Board vide letter dated 11.06.2001. He was subjected to the process of screening on 19.02.2003, which clearly establishes that his recruitment process had commenced prior to the cut-off date of 01.01.2004.
6.2 The sole reason for the delay in issuance of his appointment letter beyond 01.01.2004 was the interim order dated 24.02.2003 Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 12 OA 465/2021 passed in O.A. No. 40/2002, filed by certain unapproved casual labourers, which restrained the authorities from issuing appointment orders. The respondents, in para 16 of their Written Statement, have themselves admitted that "......
Suffice it to say that if the interim order like as "however, not publishing the results of the applicant including seven similar situated staffs of OA no. 40/2002 without the leave of the CAT Bench" is not so passed, then office of the answering respondents is able to publish the aforesaid result either much prior to 31.12.2003 or dismissed the OA no. 40/2002 on 20.10.2004.
..................."
In such OA, the applicant's husband was not an applicant but he was made a party respondent. Thus, such circumstance was wholly beyond the control of the applicant's husband and squarely falls within the expression of "delay due to administrative or judicial reasons" as subsequently recognized by the Government of India. 6.3 It is further material to note that other candidates from the same panel of 67 approved casual labourers, who were screened along with him and whose appointments were finalized before 01.01.2004, were extended the benefit of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (Old Pension Scheme). Denying the same benefit to the applicant's husband, who stood on identical footing but for the Court's interim order, amounts to invidious discrimination.
Digitally signed by SONALI LAL
SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 13 OA 465/2021 6.4 The position of law has since been clarified by the Government of India, Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare vide OM dated 17.02.2020 and OM dated 03.03.2023, which have been duly adopted by the Railway Board through RBE No. 28/2020 dated 03.03.2020 and RBE No. 41/2023 dated 10.03.2023. These circulars categorically provide that employees whose recruitment process had commenced prior to 01.01.2004, but whose appointment was delayed on account of administrative lapses or court orders, are to be governed under the Old Pension Scheme instead of being compelled under the New Pension Scheme (NPS).
6.5 In spite of these facts, the representation of the applicant was rejected vide impugned order dated 13.07.2021, which is not only cryptic and non-speaking, but also runs contrary to the binding instructions contained in the aforementioned RBEs and OMs. Such rejection is thus arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law. 6.6 Accordingly, it is concluded that the applicant's deceased husband is fully entitled to coverage under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (Old Pension Scheme) along with all consequential benefits. The denial of such benefit is a clear miscarriage of justice which deserves to be rectified by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2021 and directing the Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 14 OA 465/2021 respondents to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the applicant's husband.
6.7 Accordingly, O.A. stands allowed.
No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Administrative Member sl Digitally signed by SONALI LAL SONALI DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=0572, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963617493834803xeKNGD5eN7bXL, Phone= d55227c56413c0574ef7e92b84fad3fa8644c2a67fb01f 9970cce81465079777, PostalCode=800009, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= b85cadb360af4981732c949bc31df6d98e2c92428456a dc533ade9e38d5aed96, CN=SONALI LAL LAL Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 16:16:14+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0