Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri P.R. Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 16 December, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3294/2009 & OA No.3310/2009 with MA No.2291/2009 New Delhi, this the 16th day of December, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) I OA No.3294/2009 Shri P.R. Sharma, S/o Shri T.D. Sharma, Aged about 52 years, R/o E-105, Nanakpura, Near Nanakpura Post Office, New Delhi-110021, Presently, Posted as Deputy Director in the Staff Inspection Unit of Ministry of Finance (Expenditure), Government of India, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-03 on deputation basis. .. Applicant. (By Advocates : Shri S.N. Sharma and Shri R.A. Sharma) Versus 1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 4. Central Secretariat Service Group A Officers Association, (Represented by its Secretary, Shri Jaiparakash), Presently Under Secretary, Department of Commerce, Room No.426, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 5. Central Secretariat Service (Direct Recruit Gazetted), Association, (Represented by its General Secretary, Shri Shailendra Kumar), Presently Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, R/o C-1/1269, Second Floor, Vasant Kunj, New Dehi-110070. 6. Shri N.K. Gupta (CSL No.4894), Aged about 58 years, Presently Under Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Hall-E, Room No.3, Technology Bhawan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-1110016. 7. Shri M.R. Sharma (CSL No.4864), Aged about 56 years, Presently Under Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Government of India, Room No.417, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001. 8. Shri Yogeshwar Lal (CSL No.4890), Aged about 49 years, Presently Under Secretary, Directorate General of Supply & Disposal, Supply Division, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India, Gate No3, Room No.307, LIC Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. 9. Shri S.K. Kalhotra (CSL No.5038), Aged about 52 years, Presently Under Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Room No.271A, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011. 10. Shri M.S. Sharma (CSL No.5120), Aged about 55 years, Presently Under Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, 3rd floor, A Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110 003. 11. Shri A.K. Cashyap (CSL No.5149), Aged about 59 years, Presently Under Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, 2nd Floor, A Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003. 12. Shri J.B. Sharma (CSL No.5165), Aged about 52 years, Presently Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Room No.94-C, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 13. Shri Bijender Singh (CSL No.5299), Aged about 51 years, Presently Under Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Room No.406, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001. 14. Shri Mahendra Kumar (CSL No.5402), Aged about 53 years, Presently Under Secretary, Department of Posts, Government of India, Room No.339, Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. 15. Shri P.L. Verma (CSL No.5420), Aged about 55 years, Presently Under Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Room No.748, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001. 16. Shri Benoy Choudhary (CSL No.5724), Aged about 52 years, Presently Under Secretary (NACCO), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, 9th Floor, Chanderlok Building, Janpath, New Delhi-110 001. 17. Shri S.L. Meena (CSL No.5739), Aged about 52 years, Presently Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, Room No.215, B Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011. 18. Shri G.R. Raiger (CSL No.5860), Aged about 49 years, Presently Under Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069. 19. Shri Jerome Minz (CSL No.5930), Aged about 47 years, Presently Under Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of India, 3rd Floor, A Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110 003. 20. Shri Gouri Shankar (CSL No.6049), Aged about 48 years, Presently Under Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Room No.71, B Wing, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 003. 21. Shri K.K. Guite (CSL No.6256), Aged about 46 years, Presently Under Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Room No.319A, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011. . Respondents. (By Advocates : Shri R.N. Singh, Shri Naresh Kaushik, Shri A.K. Behera and Shri L.R. Khatana) II OA No.3310/2009 1. Shri Patanjali Sharma, Aged about 46 years, S/o Shri Atma Ram Sharma, Presently, PS, DGFT, D/o Commerce, R/o House No.907, Sector-8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. 2. Shri R.K. Dhall, Aged about 43 years, S/o Late Shri K.L.Dhall, Presently DDA, DG:AIR, Ministry of I&B, R/o C-4, F/148, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. 3. Shri Kaushlendra Pant, Aged about 50 years, S/o Late Shri R.N. Pant, Presently, PS,DG: AIR, Ministry of I&B, R/o 819,Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi-110001. 4. Mrs. Anita Chugh, Aged about 45 years, W/o Shri Kishore Kumar, Presently PS, Ministry of Health and FW, R/o A-1B/20B, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. 5. Ms. R. Nirmala, Aged about 50 years, D/o Shri D.S. Ramasubramanian, Presently PS, Ministry of Defence, R/o AB-909, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023. 6. Shri Ajay Srivastava, Aged about 47 years, S/o Shri SBL Srivastava, Presently PS, D/o Public Enterprises, R/o C-430, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi-110034. 7. Ms. Savinder Pal Kaur, Aged about 58 years, D/o of Shri Fauja Singh Presently PPS (Ad hoc), D/o Expenditure, R/o P-62, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi-110018. Applicants. (Shri Patanjali Sharma, applicant No.1, Mrs. Anita Chug, applicant No.4 and Ms. Savinder Pal Kaur, applicant No.7 in person) Versus Union of India through 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069. 3. The Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 4. Central Secretariat Service Group A Officers Association, (Represented by its Secretary, Shri Jaiparakash), Presently Under Secretary, Department of Commerce, Room No.426, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 5. Shri S.C. Srivastava, CSL No.6144, Aged about 45 years, Under Secretary, Appointments Branch, Union Public Service Commission, Room No.3, Annexe Building, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069, and 6. Shri R.K. Gupta CSL No.6181, Aged about 49 years, Under Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, Room No.278 A, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 7. Shri P.K. Sharma, Under Secretary, Department of Shipping, Jahajrani Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 8. Shri Pawan Kumar, Under Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110003. 9. Shri S.P.Pant, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi-110001. 10. Shri Suresh Kumar, Under Secretary, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 11. Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, Under Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011. 12. Shri V.T. Josepth, Under Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-10001. 13. Shri S. Padmanabha, Under Secretary, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 14. Lakshmi Kant, Under Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 15. Shri Narendra Prasad Joshi, Under Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 16. Shri G. Srinivasan, Under Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 17. Shri Ashish Kumar, Under Secretary, Central Information Commission, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. 18. Shri Bimal Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Disinvestment, New Delhi. 19. Shri Brajesh Sikka, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Room No.66, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 20. Shri R.L. Saini, Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Room No.14, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 21. Shr M.K. Pandey, Under Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs, Yashwant Place, New Delhi. 22. Dipta Bhanu Das, Under Secretary, UPSC, Room No.423 ASB, Examination Branch, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110003. 23. Ms. Renu Kakkar, Under Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 24. Shri S.R. Amin, Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 25. Shri N.M. Ranganathan, Under Secretary, Department of Pensions & PW, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003. 26. Ms. Anadi Venkateswaran, Under Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110003. 27. Kirti Vardhan, Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Room No.37A, F Wing, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 28. Shri K.S. Dahiya, Under Secretary, UPSC, Room No.216-B-ASB, Confidential Branch, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110003. 29. Ms. R. Gayathri, Under Secretary, Department of Minor Medium and Small Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 30. Ms. S. Sudha, Under Secretary (DP), Ministry of Home Affairs, Room No.172-C, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 31. Shri R.S. Raghawa, Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110001. 32. Shri M.K. Mishra, Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-11001. 33. Sambhau Sharan Kumar, Under Secretary, Department of Commerce, Room No.347, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 34. Anurag Sharma, Under Secretary, Ministry of Food & PD, Room No.295, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 35. Shri Sanjay Mittal, Under Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Room No.439, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001. 36. Shri S. Ravi, Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110001. 37. Ms. Sobhana Mathew, Under Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-110001. 38. Shri R.K. Jain, Under Secretary, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 39. Shri Anil Bhandula, Under Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Technology Bhawan, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. 40. Shri H.K. Pattanaik, Under Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 41. Shri Mahender Chaudhary, Under Secretary, Planning Commission, Yojana Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 42. Shri M.S. Shamsi, Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and FW, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 43. Shri Kulwant Singh Rana, Under Secretary Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011. 44. Shri Benode Routh, Under Secretary, Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, New Delhi. 45. Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110001. 46. Shri M.C.S. Rao, Under Secretary, Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, New Delhi. 47. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Under Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 48. Shri U.S. Chattopadhyay, Under Secretary, Inter-State Council Secretariat, Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. 49. Shri Amod Kumar Tiwari, Under Secretary, Deptt. of Higher & Secondary Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 50. Ms. Manmohan Kaur, Under Secretary, Department of Health & FW, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 51. Shri Jayakrishna Sahu, Under Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 52. Shri Din Dayal Maheshwari, Under Secretary, Department of Financial Services, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 53. Shri Shaukat Ali, Under Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi-110003. 54. Shri Gopal Krishnan Shukla, Under Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Tar Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 55. Shri S.B. Mahapatra, Under Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003. 56. Shri Ravinder Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 57. Shri O.P. Kanojia, Under Secretary, Deptt. of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 58. Shri Prem Prakash, Under Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 59. Shri Jagjeet Kumar, Under Secretary, Department of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 60. Ms. Nirmala Dev, Under Secretary, Department of Shipping, Transport Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. 61. Shri Pradeep Kumar Roy, Under Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110003. 62. Binda Paswan, Under Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Shram Shakti Bhawan, New Delhi. 63. Shri Mam Chand, Under Secretary, Deptt. of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011. 64. Shri D.N. Sahoo, S/o Late Shri H.N. Sahoo, 28-E, Sector -4, Pushp Vihar, MB Road, New Delhi-110017. 65. Shri V. Sridhar, S/o Shri R. Vedamurthy, GH-5&7/365, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087. 66. Shri A.K. Srivastava, S/o Shri T.C. Srivastava, 185, Sector-3, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022. . Respondents. (By Advocates : Shri R.N. Singh for official respondents, Shri Naresh Kaushik for UPSC, Shri A.K. Behera and Shri R.V. Sinha for private respondents) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
By this common order, with the consent of the parties, we are deciding both Original Applications, as the issues of law and facts are same.
2. The applicants in both the OAs belong to the Stenographers Group A & B (merged) Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) cadre and are working as Private Secretaries classified as Group B gazetted and belong to one of the Select Lists drawn for the years from 1990 to 1992 and have been granted non functional pay scale on completion of four years of approved service as in the case of Section Officers. The private respondents belong to the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and have been promoted to the Grade-I of CSS which is in the rank of Under Secretary (US). As per the Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962, there were two feeder categories for promotion to the Grade-I (Under Secretary) of CSS viz (1) Section Officers of CSS and (2) Stenographers Grades A&B (merged) of CSSS. It is averred by the applicants that the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) has been promoting the SOs initially on the adhoc basis to the post of US and later on preparing regular Select List from the back date for promoting them on regular basis to the Grade-I of CSS (U.S.). It is further averred that due to merger of Grade A and B of CSSS w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the entire service period is computed for the eligibility for promotion to Grade-I of CSS (US). The CSS Rules prescribed two years of service for the Stenographers in the post of Section Officers to become eligible to be considered for the promotion to the post of Under Secretary. It is further the case of the applicants that the provisions of above Rule 12(2) of CSS Rules, 1962 and its proviso in force prior to 26.02.1999 implied that the first Respondent, as Cadre Controlling Authority to Grade I (US) of the CSS, would implement the provisions of Rule 12(2) for appointment of the applicants cadre as Section Officer for at least a period of two years, in accordance with the proviso to Rule 10. However, it is stated that in case the first Respondent could not provide for the appointment of the applicants to the post of Section Officer for two years in the exigencies of service, the proviso to Rule 12(2) provided that an officer of the Grades A and B (merged) of the CSSS who has not worked as a Section Officer for the said period of two years in exigencies of service, shall also be considered for promotion to Grade-I of CSS, if he is otherwise eligible for such promotion and the Central Government in the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) will record reasons in writing to the effect that such an officer could not be appointed to the post of Section Officer in exigencies of service. Implementation of the provisions stipulated in proviso to Rule 12(2) in force prior to the amendment dated 26.02.1999 by the first and second Respondents was mandatory with respect to the protection of the right of the applicants cadre to be considered for promotion to the grade of Under Secretary. The first applicant in the OA No.3310/2009 represented to the 1st respondent to consider his case for promotion to Grade-I of CCS i.e. Under Secretary to which he received the response vide letter dated 04.01.2007. Being aggrieved by the said letter, he filed OA No.1171/2008 in this Tribunal which was dismissed for not making 59 ad hoc USs as party respondents. They are aggrieved by their non consideration and resultantly non-promotion to the post of Under Secretary by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) for the vacancies that occurred during the period 2003 to 2007. Thus, the applicants have filed the aforesaid OAs inter alia praying for consideration of their names for inclusion in the Select List panels of Grade-I (Under Secretary) of CSS Cadre in accordance with provisions of Rule 12 (2) & (3) of CSS Rules, 1962 and CSS (Promotion to Grade-I and Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964. In OA No.3294/2009, there is only one applicant who is seeking to be considered for the select list of 2003 for appointment as Under Secretary and to determine his seniority and all consequential benefits. We may refer to the following relief(s) claimed in OA No.3310/2009 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:-
8.1 To call for the records of this case.
8.2 Declare the applicants/regular officers of Grades A and B (merged) of the CSSS to be eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary against the vacancies for the years 2003 to 2007, in accordance with Rule 12 (2) & (3) of CSS Rules, 1962 and CSS (Promotion to Grade I and Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964 in force for the vacancies and consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8.3 Declare the action of Respondent No.1 to deny the right of the applicants to be considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary against the vacancies arisen for the years 2003 to 2007 and that of the first and the second Respondents to prepare Select List Panel of Grade I for the year 2003 from common Seniority List of Section Officers as discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
8.4 Direct the Respondent No.1 to consider preparation of the single list of eligible officers/Eligibility List comprising the names of Section Officers and the applicants/regular officers of Grades A and B (merged) of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service as the feeders grade for promotion to Grade I (Under Secretary), in accordance with Rule 12 (2) & (3) of CSS Rules, 1962 and CSS (Promotion to Grade I and Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964 in force for the vacancies for the years 2003 to 2007.
8.5 Direct the Respondent No.1&2 to consider inclusion of names of the Section Officers and the applicants and other regular officers of Grades A and B (merged) of the CSSS in the Select List panels of Grade I (Under Secretary) of the CSS for the years 2003 to 2007, in accordance with provisions of Rule 12 (2) & (3) of CSS Rules, 1962 and CSS (Promotion to Grade I and Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964 in force for the vacancies and consistent with provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution with all consequential service benefits and to determine the seniority of the applicants.
8.6 Direct the Respondent No.1 to consider inclusion of names of the applicants for the mandatory Level D training programme, as envisaged for the Section Officers, before promotion to the post of Under Secretary.
8.7 Cost of the application may be awarded in favour of the applicants and against the answering Respondents.
8.8 Any other relief, as deemed fit, may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in the interest of justice.
3. At the admission stage on 17.11.2009, when the OA No.3294/2009 came up, while issuing notice to the respondents, it was directed that any promotion made consequent to the impugned order would be ultimately subject to the final orders to be passed in the OA.
4. The 1st respondent has raised preliminary objection-i.e. the OA is barred by res judicata / constructive res judicata inasmuch as the applicants have earlier filed similar two applications viz. OA No.2793/2005 in the CSSS Gazetted Officers Association and Others versus Union of India and Others which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide judgment dated 24.04.2008 and OA No.1171/2008 decided on 25.08.2009 in Patanjali Sharma versus Union of India and Others.
5. On behalf of the applicants, Shri Patanjali Sharma would contend that the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata would not be attracted in adjudicating the issues in the present OAs and referring to the orders passed in OA No.2793/2005 and OA No.1171/2008, he would submit that he had taken up the issues before the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Patanjali Sharma (supra) in WP (C) No.8471/2009 which was decided on 14.09.2010 in following terms:-
11. Reason why the aforesaid request has been made is that the substantive issues pertaining to in what manner should promotions be effected till the recruitment rules were formally notified and whether the rules as notified are discriminatory would be adjudicated in OA Nos.3310/2009, 1667/2008 and OA No.2674/2009.
12. We agree.
13. Accordingly we disposed of the writ petition declaring that the above observations made in the impugned order dated 24.4.2008 and 09.01.2009 which impact the notification dated 01.02.2008 would not be taken into account by the Tribunal when OA No.3310/2009, 1667/2008 and 2674/2009 are decided. Pursuant to the above directions, he along with others have come to this Tribunal in both OAs. His second contention is that while OA No.2793/2005 was pending before the Tribunal, the DOPT amended the CSS Rules vide Notification dated 01.02.2008 removing the officers of CSSS Cadre from the feeder category for promotion to the post of Under Secretary and the said OA was dismissed by granting the liberty to the applicants therein to challenge the said amendment which they have done in the instant OAs. His third contention is that issues for determination in the present OAs are different from the OAs decided earlier which have not been adjudicated earlier. In the present OAs, the applicants are challenging their non-consideration for promotion to the grade of Under Secretary. It is claimed that they being eligible, they have right to be considered which is the issue here. In support of his contentions, Shri Sharma placed his reliance on the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and Others versus Dossibai N. B. Jeejeeboy [AIR 1971 SC 2355]; Ashok Kumar Srivastava versus national Insurance Company Limited and Others [1998-4-SCC-361]; and Shailendra Dania and Others versus S. P. Dubey and Others [2007-5-SCC-535]. It is, therefore, contended that the OAs are not barred by the principles of res judicata / constructive resjudicata.
6. After a careful perusal of the orders of this Tribunal in three earlier OAs, the judgment of Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.8471/2009 and the contentions of the parties, it is noticed that some of the issues raised in the present OAs have not been adjudicated earlier. Thus, there is strength in the arguments advanced by the applicants. Principles of res judicata / constructive res judicata would not be applicable to the instant OAs.
7. Shri Patanjali Sharma, 1st applicant along with two applicants viz Ms. Anita Chugh and Ms. Savinder Pal Kaur in the OA No.3310/2009; and Shri S.N. Sharma assisted by Shri R.A. Sharma, learned counsel in the OA No.3294/2009 placed their contentions in both cases representing all the applicants. Shri Patanjali Sharma, the applicant in person led the arguments in the final hearing.
8. Referring to the factual background of their grievances, Shri Patanjali Sharma submitted that the CSS Rules, 1962 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the CSS (Promotion to Grade-I and Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964 envisaged to prepare a Select List every year under Rule 12 and prescribed procedure for drawing up such select list. He referred to three amendments which are relevant for the consideration of issues flagged in the OAs. As per the amendment dated 19.1.1970 the Stenographers quota was abolished and a condition was incorporated in Rule 12 of the CSS Rules for the Members of CSSS to work as SO for 2 years for which the procedure was indicated in both CSS Rules (Rule 7 and 10) and CSSS Rules (Rule 6 and 9). Vide amendment dated 24/26.2.1999 Rule 12 of the CSS Rules was amended. It was contended by Shri Sharma that the condition of working for two years as so for Grade A and B (merged) Stenographers was abolished and in place of 10 years 8 years of approved service was prescribed for becoming eligible for promotion to Grade-I (Under Secretary). Third amendment was vide Notification dated 01.02.2008 which removed the Stenographers Group A and B (merged) from the feeder category for promotion to the Under Secretary Grade. The contention in the context of the above three amendments was that applicants claim for consideration for promotion to the post of Under Secretary was as per unamended CSS Rules prior to 01.02.2008 and after 26.02.1999. Shri Patanjali Sharma would further submit that the corresponding provisions in the CSS (Promotion to Gr.I and Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964 were not changed as per the above three amendments. As per the Regulation 5, the DOPT is duty bound to obtain the names of eligible Stenographers Grade A and B (merged) from the cadre authorities along with eligible SOs. But the DOPT failed to get the names of the eligible Stenographers belonging to CSSS. It is further stated that though vacancies of U.S.s have been available every year i.e. from 2003 to 2008, the respondent DOPT has adopted adhocism by promoting the SOs only and ignoring the claims of the CSSS officers and the applicants who belong to 1990 to 1992 Select List of Grade A and B (merged) of CSSS have not been considered. His contention was that for the year 2003 there were 881 vacant posts of USs and for filing up such vacancies, 2643 officers (881X3) would have been considered in the zone of consideration and as the SOs in such numbers were not available and the applicants were eligible for inclusion in the zone of consideration but their non consideration by the 1st respondent deprived the 7th applicant for promotion to the US Select List for 2003. Similarly, 1st and 6th applicants were denied promotion to US grade of CSS for the Select List 2006 and all other applicants for the Select List 2007. His submission is that injustice has been done to all the applicants which needs to be redressed by the Tribunal.
9. Shri Sharma referred to the counter affidavit filed by the DOPT and UPSC to submit that the DOP&T was not appointing the eligible Stenographers including the applicants as SO for two years and once the said condition was deleted from Rule 12 in the Notification dated 26.2.1999 they were eligible to be considered for promotion to US grade. As the amendment Notification dated 01.02.2008 is prospective, Shri Sharma submits that the vacancies existing prior to 01.02.2008 needs to be filled up as per earlier Rules. He, therefore, urges that both the OAs should be allowed with appropriate directions to appoint the applicants to the concerned year Select List of the Grade-I of the CSS (Under Secretary).
10. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the official respondents have submitted their reply affidavits through Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Central Government counsel for the 1st and 3rd respondents and Shri Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for UPSC the 2nd respondent. Shri L.R. Khatana, Shri R.V. Sinha and Shri A.K. Behera, learned counsels represented the private respondents in filing the reply affidavit and few private respondents filed their response to the OAs and appeared in person during the hearings.
11. Shri R.N. Singh led the arguments on behalf of the respondents in opposing the contentions canvassed by Shri Patanjali Sharma. He submits that the applicant No.1 has himself admitted in his representation dated 19.12.2006 that he is not eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Under Secretary, as he has not worked as SO for a period of two years. His contention is that the eligibility is a matter to be decided by the cadre controlling authority on the basis of Rules, Regulations and instructions. The Rule 10, its proviso and Rule 12(2) provide the eligibility of the CSSS officials to the US posts of the CSS. As per the CSS Rule 12(2), the posts of the Under Secretary of the CSS have to be filled up 100% by promotion. Referring to the judgment of this Tribunal in the CP No.419/2006 and MA No.182/2008 in OA No.2793 of 2005, Shri Singh states that the Tribunal while dismissing the Contempt Petition vide judgment dated 24.04.2008 has taken due cognizance of the Notification dated 01.02.2008 and has observed that there is long standing history and genesis of this case. Although, in the earlier orders, the CSSS were having lateral entry into the CSS at varying times, it is now finally on the recommendations of the 5th CPC and on the recommendations of Group of Officers as culminated in setting up separate hierarchy and separate promotion opportunities of both the cadres. Admittedly, the nature of duties, functions and responsibilities of the Stenographer cadre and SOs cadre are different. It is by now well settled position and as has been held by Honble Supreme Court that creation of services cadre structure and restructuring etc. are matters, which lie squarely within the domain of the executive. This being a policy decision of Government, the Tribunal cannot interfere in the matter. It is further held that the two cadres are different because their nature of duties, functions and responsibilities are different. In view of the above as well as relying on the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in P.U. Joshi & Ors. Vs. The Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Ors. [2003(1) SC (SLJ), 237] Shri Singh submits that the eligibility issue squarely comes under the purview of the Government to decide as to what kind of or which qualification is appropriate for promotion or recruitment. It is also added that un-equals cannot be given similar treatment.
12. Shri R.N. Singh would submit that the factual status at the time of preparation of US Select Lists of 2003 to 2008 for the CSS should be kept in view while deciding the issues raised by the applicant. (i) The Section Officers grade was a decentralized cadre as per the CSS Rules, 1962. Accordingly, the appointment of PS of CSSS as Section Officer was to be made by the cadres i.e. participating Ministries/Departments. (ii) No Ministry/Department ever informed DOPT of appointment of any CSSS officer as Section Officer. None of the applicants have submitted any proof of his/her appointment as SO for 2 years. It was also not brought to the notice of the 1st respondent that the request of CSSS Officer for appointment as Section Officer was not considered. (iii) Such of the PSs of CSSS who held the post of Section Officer in the respective years, were considered by the 1st respondent and the cases were referred to UPSC for inclusion in the Select List of Under Secretary. (iv) By his own admission the applicant Shri Patanjali Sharma never held the post of Section Officer. On the contrary, he was promoted to the grade of PPS in CSSS equivalent to US of CSS. Other applicants have also been promoted to the grade of PPS in their own channel of promotion.
13. Respondents have stated that on the one hand SOs are available in plenty with more than 12 years of service and on the other hand the applicants desire inclusion of their names even without having experience of at least 2 years as SO which is the feeder grade for US. Since 1992, no PS of CSSS has been included in the US Select List. The last PS was included in US SL was in the year 1991 as he had worked on the duty post of SO for a period of two years. Even subsequent to amendment to CSS Rules in 1999, no PS of CSSS was included in the US Select Lists of 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. There is a combined seniority list (CSL) of Section Officers coming from three streams of recruitment to the grade viz. direct recruitment, seniority promotion and through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, and the continuity of the CSL cannot be broken without any reason. Only if a member of the CSSS has worked on the duty post of the Section Officer at least for a period of two years, then only he could become eligible for consideration by the Selection Committee for the post of Under Secretary. He, further submits that in supersession of the CSS Rules 1962, the CSS Rule 2009 has been notified vide Notification dated 27.02.2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, as per which Rule 11(3) envisages only Section Officers as the feeder category to fill up Grade-I of the CSS i.e. Under Secretary vacancies. In view of the submission made in the counter reply and the contentions advanced, Shri R.N.Singh urges that the OA may be dismissed.
14. On behalf of the UPSC, Shri Naresh Kaushik submits that the UPSC has constitutional obligation to ensure that appointments to the Grade-I of CSS i.e. U.S. grade are made in accordance with CSS Rules, relevant regulations and guidelines. It is submitted that the 1st respondent being the Cadre Controlling Authority, information on the zone of consideration is submitted to UPSC which inter alia includes the Eligibility List as per Rules 10 and 12 of CSS Rules. First respondent is also the Cadre Controlling Authority for CSSS officers and has not submitted the names of any officer of Group A and B (merged) who have worked for 2 years as SO and certified that the no CSSS officers has held duty post as defined in Rule 10 of CSS Rules. It is further stated that the DOPT has submitted Eligibility List drawn on the basis of the CSS Rules which includes names of 1584 Section Officers name.
15. Shri A.K.Behera, Shri L.R. Khatana and Shri R.V. Sinha, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the private respondents generally endorsed the views expressed by the counsel for official respondents. They would only submit that as per the extant CSS Rules, the private respondents being eligible Section Officers and having been properly scrutinized by the UPSC were selected for promotion to the Grade-I of CSS, namely, Under Secretary. The other contention raised by them is regarding the claims of the applicants that between 2003 and 2007 the Stenographers Grade A and B (merged) were eligible and were not considered by the Competent Authorities and denied the opportunity for promotion to the rank of Under Secretary, they would briefly highlight that though the Rule 12 of CSS Rules were amended in 1999, but the Rule 10 of CSS Rules and Regulations clearly provided that the Grade A & B (merged) Stenographers could only be considered for promotion as Under Secretary if they had worked as Section Officer for a period of two years. It was submitted that none of the applicants had worked as Section Officers, less to speak that they have qualified for a period of two years of Section Officer to be considered for the post of Under Secretary. They, therefore, urged that both the OAs should be dismissed.
16. Having heard the contentions of the rival parties, with their assistance, we have gone through the pleadings as well. The principal controversy is whether non-consideration of the applicants who belonged to Grade A & B (merged) CSSS Cadre for promotion to the post of Under Secretary in CSS cadre for the years 2003 to 2007 was legally sustainable or not?
17. The first respondent is the cadre controlling authority for CSS as well as CSSS. A close and careful scrutiny of the pleadings manifest that based on the recommendations of Group of Officers on cadre restructuring of CSSS, the Government took a decision in the Cabinet in 2005 to regulate the service conditions of members of CSSS, in order to have a parallel structure of CSSS on the pattern of CSS, the Cabinet decided to stop the lateral entry of members of CSSS into Grade-I (Under Secretary) of CSS. Accordingly, OM dated 27/29th July, 2005 was issued by the 1st respondent and the same could be notified in Gazette vide Notification No.GSR 64(E) dated 1.2.2008. This is the amendment to CSS Rules whereby the entry of CSSS Stenographers of Group A and B (merged) to the Under Secretary levelled stopped. We note that Government provided ample opportunity for the applicants to advance in their cadre of the CSSS which provided good promotion prospects. We note that the 1st respondent has by Notification dated 27.2.2009 brought in a new set of CSS Rules and the earlier CSS Rules, 1962 periodically amended stood superceded.
18. It is appropriate for us to note that the applicants have given a twist to the CSS Rules claiming that Rule 12 prescribes 8 years of approved service only which they have got on the crucial date for the Select List of 2003. We find that there should be conjunctive reading of both Rules 10 and 12 for the purpose of preparing an Eligibility List for finalization of Select List for promotion to the US grade. The interpretation given by the applicants is not correct. We may refer to those Rules in forthcoming paragraphs.
19. It is appropriate to note that the parties referred to few rules of the CSS Rules which would suit their respective contentions. We have done a collective reading and may refer to all the relevant Rules which cover the field of controversy. It is in this context of the above issue that we may refer to the relevant provisions in the CSS Rules which prescribed the eligibility criteria for the officers from feeder categories to be promoted as Under Secretary in CSS. It is not in dispute that the Grade-I (Under Secretary) post comes within the ambit of the CSS Rules. Normal channels of promotion for the post of Under Secretary is from the Section Officer. The Notification dated 01.02.2008 removed the Grade A & B (merged) CSSS Stenographers from the field/feeder category of promotion to the US grade. But, there was a provision prior to the amendment Notification dated 01.02.2008 that CSSS officers from the Grade A and B (merged) Category would also be eligible to be promoted as Under Secretary, provided they are eligible as per the CSS Rules. The claims of the applicants are two fold : (a) the prescribed two years period to act as a Section Officer had been done away with, as per the amendment Notification of 26.02.1999 and (b) even if such provision exists in the matters of promotion to US, the Stenographers of CSSS Cadre can be considered even if they have not put in two years of qualifying service as Section Officer in case of exigencies of service. We would, therefore, refer to the relevant Rules which govern the field.
20. Rule 3 of CSS Rules provides the composition of the Central Secretariat Service into four grades of Assistant, Section Officer, Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary. Rule 2(k) of the CSS Rules provides that the grade means any of the grades specified in Rule 3 and Rule 2(r) envisages that the service means the Central Secretariat Services (CSS) wherein there is no mention about the grades of the CSSS. Rule 7 of CSS Rules provides that except in the case of Selection Grade (Deputy Secretary) or Grade-I (Under Secretary), if the duty posts of Central Secretariat Services are to be held by persons belonging to other services, such posts have to be excluded from CSS with the concurrence of the first respondent. It is to be noted that in case the officers of CSSS are to occupy any post of CSS, they will be outside the CSS Cadre. These have to be done only with the concurrence of the Cadre Controlling Authority namely, first respondent. Rule 10 provides that duty posts of CSS unless excluded shall be held by the CSS officers only. It is to be noted here that the Stenographers of CSSS with two years experience in the Grade-I i.e. Grade A & B (merged) can be posted to duty posts in the Section Officers Grade. From the above provision, it is derived that such Private Secretaries who have rendered not less than two years of service as Section Officers can be considered for promotion as Under Secretary. Further, this Rule provides the officers of CSSS to be posted as Section Officer only for a limited period of two years to get themselves qualified for consideration to be promoted to the rank of Under Secretary. This particular Rule, therefore, clearly envisages that only with the experience in the grade of Section Officers of CSS, the CSSS Officers would be eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of Under Secretary. We take the extract of Rule 10 which reads as follows :-
Duty posts to be held by cadre officers.- Every duty post in a cadre shall, unless declared to be excluded from the cadre under rule 7, or held in abeyance for any reasons, be held by a cadre officer of the appropriate Grade.
Provided that, subject to such instructions as the Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions may, from time to time issue, officers of Grade A of the corresponding Cadre of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service, who have rendered not less than two years service in that Grade may be posted to duty posts in the Section Officers grade and officers of grade C Stenographers of the corresponding Cadre of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service who have rendered not less than five years service in that grade may be posted to duty posts in the Assistants Grade, the period of such appointment in either case being limited to two years. Officers of the corresponding cadre of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service so appointed to duty posts in the Section Officers and Assistants Grade shall continue to draw the grade pay admissible to them in the service from time to time. Rule 12 of CSS Rules was amended in the year 1999. It would be appropriate for us to take extracts of the provisions in Rule 12 which was existing prior to and after 1999 amendment, and extracted in the following table :-
Rule 12 (2, 3 &4) prior to amendment Amendment in Rule 12 (2&3) in the year 1999
12. Recruitment to Selection Grade and Grade I.-
...... . (2) Vacancies in Grade-I shall be filled by promotion of regular officers of the Section Officers Grade who have rendered not less than eight years approved service in that Grade and of regular officers of Grade A and B (merged) of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service who have rendered not less than eight years approved service in that Grade and are included in the Select List for Grade I of the Service prepared under sub-rule(4).
Provided that no person included in a later Select List shall be eligible to be appointed to the Grade until all officers included in an earlier Select List have been appointed.
Provided further that if any person appointed to the Section Officers Grade before the appointed day is considered for promotion to Grade-I under this sub-rule, all persons senior to him in that Grade before that day shall also be so considered notwithstanding that they may not have rendered ten years approved service in that Grade :
Provided further that an officer of Grade I of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service appointed to the Section Officers Grade against the Stenographers quota before the appointed day who ranks senior to any of the permanent Section Officers eligible to be considered for promotion to Grade I of the Central Secretariat Service under the second proviso shall also be eligible to be considered for such promotion notwithstanding that he may not have been substantively appointed to the Section Officers Grade.
(3) Substantive appointments to the Selection Grade shall be made in order of seniority of temporary officers of the respective Grade except when, for reasons to be recorded in writing, a person is not considered fit for such appointment in his turn.
(4) For the purpose of sub-rules (1) and (2) a Select List for the Selection Grade and Grade I shall be prepared and may be revised from time to time. The procedure for preparing and revising the Select Lists shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Central Government in the Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
Provided that the regulations relating to the procedure for preparing and revising the Select List for Grade I shall be framed in consultation with the Commission and such Select List shall also be prepared in consultation with them.
Amendment Notification dated 26.2.1999 :
. ..
(2) Vacancies in Grade-I shall be filled by promotion of regular officers of the Section Officers grade who have rendered not less than eight years approve service in that Grade and of regular officers of Grade A and B (merged of the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service who have rendered not less than eight years approved service in that Grade and are included in the Select List for Grade I of the Service prepared under sub-rule(3).
(3) For the purpose of sub-rules (1) and (2) a Select List for the Selection Grade and Grade shall be prepared and may be revised from time to time. The procedure for preparing and revising the Select Lists shall be such as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Central Government in the Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
Provided that the regulations relating to the procedure for preparing and revising the Select List for Grade-I shall be framed in consultation with the Commission and such Select List shall also be prepared in consultation with them.
A collective reading of these two relevant Rules i.e. Rule 10 and Rule 12 would make it crystal clear that officers belonging to CSSS have to have two years of experience as Section Officer to become eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary. In the absence of such experience , the officers of CSSS would not be eligible and also not entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary.
21. As per the instructions of DOPT, a Private Secretary (PS) of CSSS who has rendered not less than two years service can be appointed as Section Officer for a period limited to two years. This was with a view to make them to gain experience as Supervisory Officers. In the Proviso under Rule 10, it has clearly been provided that the DOPT has to issue instructions from time to time and the Department has been issuing instructions to Ministries and Departments. But it is also a case that there has been reluctance in the CSSS cadre to hold the post of SOs and gain experience. Regulation 5 of the CSS (Promotion to Grade-I and Selection Grade) Regulations, 1964 provides the method and manner under which Select Lists of US shall be prepared. In terms of this regulation, Private Secretaries of CSSS are required to be appointed as Section Officer in any cadre before their names could be considered for inclusion in such Select Lists. Thus, as per the statutory provision, CSSS officers can be considered for inclusion in the Select List of US of CSS only if they have worked as Section Officer for a period of 2 years. The applicants experience in the field of Stenographers service even though may be relevant for promotion to the post of Under Secretary but experience of two years in the SO post is equally relevant and mandatory. We note that some of the applicants being aware of such provision have sought consideration of their name by relaxing the instructions of 1st respondent that a PS of CSSS should serve as SO for 2 years. In the context of the above statutory provisions, when we examine the facts of the case in both OAs, we find that all the applicants in both the OAs do not have two years of experience as Section Officer. Thus, they are not eligible for consideration for promotion to the Select List of Under Secretary.
22. A plea has been taken on the basis of the proviso to Rule 12 by which the applicants could have been considered on the grounds of exigencies of service. But such exigencies need to be seen as it arises and discretion to be exercised by only executive and that too if the need arises and eligible Section Officers are not available. On the other hand, a careful perusal of the pleadings reveal that the Competent Authorities have prepared the Select List for promotion to the post of Under Secretary from out of the Section Officers for the said years (2003-2008) which reflects the availability of good number of Section Officers for the purpose. For the year 2003, 875 officers were in the Select List with 6 in the extended Select List, for the year 2004, 63 in the main Select List, for the year 2005, 129 in the Select List, for the year 2006, 155 in the main Select List and 2 in the extended Select List, for the year 2007, 52 in the main list and 2 in the extended Select List and for the year 2008, 66 in the main Select List and 1 in the extended Select List and those lists were prepared and appropriate promotions had been made by the first respondent. In view of this, we are not convinced that the exigency clause could have been invoked in favour of the applicants.
23. Another plea that was taken by the applicants relates to the ad hoc manner in which the first respondent has promoted the Section Officers to the post of Under Secretary and thereafter they have been regularized. It is appropriate to note that ad hoc promotion is made to meet the requirements in a particular rank and the promotion exercise is undertaken in order to ensure that the normal functioning of the Departments in the Government of India does not suffer. We do not find any reason as to how the action of the first respondent can be faulted for granting ad hoc promotion to the eligible Section Officer for the post of Under Secretary. Plea of the applicant in this regard does not convince us.
24. After analyzing the facts and the statutory provisions in the matter , we note that the Section Officers and Private Secretaries are clearly and distinctly belong to two different cadres, i.e. Section Officers belonging to CSS cadre and Private Secretaries belong to CSSS cadre. Each of these cadres have their own lines of promotion. Over the years, the Government using the powers of delegated legislation has amended the respective Rules i.e. CSS Rules and CSSS Rules. At one time, the officers of CSSS used to work in CSS and vice versa. After the amendment Notification dated 26.2.1999, the lateral entry at the Section Officers level of the CSS from the rank of Private Secretaries of CSSS was available. The intention of the Rule makers, we find, was to ensure that for a particular period, the Private Secretaries coming from the CSSS have to have experience as Section Officers in order to become eligible to be promoted as Under Secretary. Implanting of Private Secretaries directly to the promoted posts of Under Secretary was not the intention. This intention is definitely rational and logical , in view of the fact that the work that Under Secretaries have to do are far different from the work to be done by the Principal Private Secretaries. The two years period has been prescribed for the Private Secretaries to work as Section Officers to become eligible for the post of Under Secretary. This practice was followed for many years. Even it was applicable right up to the year 2008, when due to the Notification the link that was earlier available was completely snapped and a fresh Rule of 2009 superceding all earlier amendments and the CSS Rules of 1962 brought in clarity on the appropriate lines of promotion in case of the Section Officers in the CSS. The administrative coherence and statutory clarity lead us to conclude that during the period from 2003 to 2007, a period of two years experience in the post of Section Officer was absolutely necessary for the Private Secretaries in order to become eligible to be considered for promotion to the rank of Under Secretary. The lack of such experience as Section Officer would, therefore, not make them eligible, less to speak of consideration by the Competent Authority. This has been reflected by the first respondent giving certificates to the UPSC for those years (from 2003 to 2007) indicating that no officer of CSSS was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Under Secretary. The said certificates have also been examined and accepted by the DPC of the UPSC and drawn up of the Select List of Under Secretaries for the year 2003 to 2008. In our considered opinion there is no legal or procedural infirmity in doing so by the Competent Official Respondents.
25. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the applicants in both OAs have not made out the case in their support. For the reasons given within, we conclude that non-consideration of Grade A & B (merged) Stenographers of CSSS for promotion to the post of Grade I of CSS (Under Secretaries) for the years 2003 to 2007 is in conformity with the provisions of the statute and, therefore, action of the official respondents is legally sustainable.
26. Finding no merits in both Original Applications, those are dismissed. In view of the typical nature of the cases cost is made easy.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /rk/