Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai

Usha Yogiraj Naik vs All India Radio on 21 March, 2025

                              1             OA No.87/2023

          CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
               MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.

          ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.87/2023

       Dated this Friday the 21st March, 2025

CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

Usha Yogiraj Naik
W/o Yogiraj Naik
Age : 50 years, Occupation-
Service, residing at :
Shubhangan, H.No.264/11,
Opp. Chougm Rd. Behind
Amrekar Temple, At Post
Porvorim, Goa - 403 521.
Mumbai - 400 055.                 ...   Applicant

( By Advocate Shri V.A. Nagrani )

           VERSUS

1. The Union of India
Through its secretary,
Ministry of information &
Broadcasting,
Room No.552, A Wing, Shastri
Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.

2. Senior Administrative
Officer
All India Radio Broadcasting
House, H T Parekh Marg,
Mumbai - 20.
                                    2                OA No.87/2023

3. Additional Director General
All India Radio Broadcasting
House, H.T. Parekh Marg,
Mumbai - 20.

4. Programme Executive/Dy.
Director, Prasar Bharti, Indian
Public Broadcaster, All India
Radio, Panji-Goa.              ...              Respondents

(By Advocate Ms. Vaishali Choudhari)

Order reserved on : 18.03.2025
Order pronounced on :

                           ORDER

The present OA has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned order dated 20th July, 2021 (Annexure A-4) issued by the respondents in respect of recovery of the amount of Rs.21,97,713/- out of amount of Gratuity of deceased husband of the applicant. The order dated 14th May, 2018 (Annexure A-1), Memorandum dated 06th July, 2018 (Annexure A-2) and order dated 01st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3) are also under challenge.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the applicant was working with the respondents as "A Top-grade Artist" and during the entire period of service, the service record of the applicant's husband was excellent blotless. It is stated that during the service of the applicant's husband in May, 2014, the respondents have installed biometric machine at the work station at AIR Panji and the respondents started functioning those biometric machines from 01st June, 2014. It is stated that the husband of the applicant was discharging his duties regularly and he was very punctual in marking his biometric attendance. It is further stated that the husband of the applicant had applied for leave vide application dated 19th April, 2018 and the said application was sanctioned vide order dated 19th April, 2018 subject to permission from Directorate. It is stated that the applicant's husband was having 237/467 days earned 4 OA No.87/2023 leave/commuted leave/half pay leave to his credit as on 30th June, 2018.

2.1 It is further stated that the applicant's husband was transferred from AIR Panji to AIR Mumbai vide order dated 23rd April, 2018 and relieved him with immediate effect. Thereafter, a Memorandum dated 14th May, 2018 was issued in which it was alleged that as per biometric attendance record, the applicant's husband remained absent from duty during the year 2014 to 2018 for total 780 days. After receipt of the aforesaid memorandum, the applicant's husband immediately made an application dated 21 st May, 2018 to the respondents requesting him to provide details pertaining to his attendance for the said period. However, instead of providing detailed attendance records, the respondents issued vague attendance details and further issued another Memorandum dated 06th July, 2018 wherein the applicant's husband was directed to submit leave 5 OA No.87/2023 application to regularize alleged period of absenteeism within eight days else, the period of absence will be treated as unauthorized absence and further recovery will be initiated. On 11 th July, 2018, reply was submitted again requesting for particular date wise details of alleged period of absenteeism.

2.2 It is further submitted that after joining at Mumbai on 13th August, 2018, the respondents did not release salary from April, 2018 to 13th August, 2018. Thereafter, inspite of various representations, salary was not released and, therefore, legal notice dated 10th September, 2018 was issued for release the salary. Thereafter, OA No.688/2018 was filed before this Tribunal challenging the memorandums which was disposed of vide order dated 28th November, 2018 directing the applicant to submit comprehensive representation to the respondents and the respondents were directed to pass 6 OA No.87/2023 reasoned orders.

2.3 In pursuance of the aforesaid order, detailed and comprehensive representation dated 07th December, 2018 was submitted. However, vide impugned communication/order dated 01 st February, 2019, the said representation was rejected. Thereafter, OA No.185/2019 was filed by challenging impugned order dated 01st February, 2019, impugned Memorandums dated 14th May, 2018 and 06th July, 2018, in which vide order dated 20th March, 2019, interim protection was granted to the applicant by directing the respondents "not to take any coercive steps in pursuance to the impugned orders impugned by the applicant in the present OA". It is stated that during the pendency of the said OA, the applicant's husband was expired due to Covid-19 on 29th April, 2021. During the pendency of the aforesaid OA, impugned order dated 20th July, 2021 was issued informing that total amount of Rs.21,97,713/- is to be recovered from late 7 OA No.87/2023 husband of the applicant and, therefore, amount of Rs.20 lacs pertains to gratuity will be withheld and also informed to pay amount of Rs.1,97,713/- for settlement of family pension. All the aforesaid orders are under challenge on the ground that impugned orders are ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary and void ab-initio. 2.4 It is submitted that allegation of unauthorized absence from May, 2014 to April, 2018 after a long delay of four years is totally illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. It is submitted that ACRs/APARs are recorded annually based on the subjective assessment pursuant to the quality of service turned out by the employee and ACRs/APARs of the applicant's husband are not only upto the bench mark but also he was awarded with the benchmark of 'very good' during the alleged period of unauthorized absenteeism. In fact, the respondents have released his full salary without any adverse remark on punctuality 8 OA No.87/2023 during the alleged period of unauthorized absenteeism.

2.5 It is further submitted that after death of the husband of the applicant, as per rules, the applicant is entitled for the retiral benefits. In any case, the respondents are not entitled to recover any amount from the retiral dues of the deceased employee.

3. After notice, the official respondents have filed reply and contested OA. They have stated therein that the issue in question is in narrow compass. The applicant's husband, who was working in the office of the respondents as a Top Grade Artist, had remained absent between 2014 to 2018 as could be seen from a careful perusal of the Bio-metric attendance register, whereas he had been drawing full salary and emoluments for the said period. The period in question is between May, 2014 and April, 2018. The applicant's husband vide impugned order dated 9 OA No.87/2023 14th May, 2018 was called upon to apply and get the period of absence regularized, failing which a total of 730 days was to be treated as unauthorised absence. The applicant's husband refused to oblige, as a consequence whereof, recovery to the tune of Rs.21,97,713/- was ordered. The gratuity of the deceased employee has been withheld. The applicant's husband had filed an OA No.688/2018 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 28th November, 2018 with a direction to the respondents to consider an application which was to be made by the applicant therein alongwith all relevant documents and facts about his working during the said period. The representation of the applicant therein was made by him on 07th December, 2018 (Annexure A-

13). The applicant had also made a representations dated 21st August, 2018 and 05th September, 2018. The said representations have come to be finally decided by the impugned 10 OA No.87/2023 speaking order wherein the competent authority had come to a conclusion that the representations were not in consonance with the spirit of bio- metric system and that the applicant's husband had failed to produce any relevant document for proving his presence in the office during the prescribed working hours on the days on which he has come to be declared as unauthorizedly absent. It is further noticed by the competent authority that marking attendance through bio-metric attendance system either in the morning or evening does not justify his presence in the office for the entire day.

3.1 It is further submitted that the applicant's husband had also pleaded that the bio-metric attendance system was not working in the office of the respondents but the same clearly appears to be incorrect since the bio- metric attendance in respect of rest of the employees for the said period has been correctly 11 OA No.87/2023 recorded. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, the decision of the respondents to recover Rs.21,97,713/- from the retiral dues of the deceased employee and the late husband of the applicant is in order. A sum of Rs.20,00,000/- has already been withheld by way of gratuity and the balance sum of Rs.1,97,713/- is sought to be recovered from the applicant's family pension in suitable installments. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, the respondents submitted that the impugned order passed by them does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Tribunal.

3.2 It is further submitted that all the efforts were made to trace the Manual Attendance Register for marking attendance from the month of May 2014 before installation of Bio-Metric Machine but it could not be traced out. Hence, the applicant's husband can be given benefit of doubt and those days of absence can be 12 OA No.87/2023 ignored/exempted, but after 01st June, 2014 the biometric attendance record is available. 3.3 It is further submitted that employees are paid salary for the whole day of their work and for the 100% attendances in the office. Just attending the office in the morning and disappearing from the office thereafter, is improper, indiscipline and not justifiable. It is accepted that the applicant's husband has attended the duty, performed the recordings etc. but it is denied that he was present in the office for full day/office hours on many occasions, as per biometric records. Therefore on the basis of reply, the official respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA.

4. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the pleadings and material available on record.

5. Shri V.A. Nagrani, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the impugned 13 OA No.87/2023 Memorandum dated 14th May, 2018 and 06th July, 2018 were subject matter of challenge before this Tribunal in OA No.688/2018 and this Tribunal vide order dated 28th November, 2018 directed the respondents to consider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order. It is submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, a detailed representation dated 07th February, 2018 was filed by the deceased employee in which RTI information received shows that deceased employee had worked from June, 2014 to April, 2018 continuously. It is specifically mentioned that during these period, the deceased employee had carried out work of recordings or transfer of music CDs to computer etc. Thus, under no stretch of imagination, the said period can be treated as unauthorised absence. It is further submitted that deceased employee was never informed about his absence from 2014 to 2018 till the date of relieving on transfer to 14 OA No.87/2023 Mumbai. However, while passing the impugned order dated 01st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3), the authority has failed to take into consideration the facts and grounds stated in the representation.

6. It is further contended that in impugned order dated 01st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3), it is observed that non-adherence to the instructions contained in the circulars regarding attendance is violation of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and shows the lack of devotion to duty. However, prior to declaring the deceased employee as unauthorised absentee, no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity was granted and, therefore, the impugned Memorandums are contrary to the principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that during the pendency of OA No.185/2019, original applicant expired on 29 th April, 2021 and his legal representatives were brough on record and finally the said OA was 15 OA No.87/2023 permitted to withdraw on 02nd November, 2022 with liberty to the present applicant to file on the same cause of action. It is contended that since during the life time of deceased employee, no proper procedure has been adopted for declaring him as unauthorized absentee and, therefore, all such proceedings are now abated.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Office Memorandum dated 22nd June, 2010 to substantiate that in case of unauthorised absence, prescribed procedure is required to be followed by the Ministry/department which is also not followed in the present department.

8. It is submitted that applicant being the legal representative of the deceased employee is entitled to receive all statutory post retiral benefits and any deduction/recovery from the post retiral dues is contrary to law.

9. It is further submitted that looking to the Office Memorandum dated 21st November, 2014 16 OA No.87/2023 which was issued on subject of 'Introduction of AADHAR Enabled Bio-metric Attendance System' and clause 4 of the aforesaid OM clearly provides that biometric attendance system is only an enabling platform, meaning thereby, apart from manual recording of attendance, this procedure was introduced. It is the specific stand of the deceased employee that he had worked during alleged period and biometric machine was not properly functioning during the said period. Under these circumstances, issuance of impugned Memorandums and impugned action of recovery/adjustment is illegal and unsustainable.

10. On the other hand, Ms. Vaishali Choudhari, learned counsel for the respondents on the basis of reply vehemently contended that since the record of biometric attendance clearly shows that the deceased employee was not present during the aforesaid period and, therefore, while issuing impugned Memorandums, the said employee 17 OA No.87/2023 was asked to submit leave application to regularize his absence. However, instead of filing the application, he has approached before this Tribunal and in pursuance of the order passed by this Tribunal, the authority has rightly passed speaking order dated 01st February, 2019. It is further submitted that since there was long absent of period of 780 days and, therefore, taking into consideration, the aforesaid period, the authority has rightly issued impugned communication dated 20 th July, 2021 (Annexure A-4).

11. After hearing learned counsels for both the parties and after perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the husband of the applicant was serving with the respondents i.e. All India Radio as "A Top-grade Artist". It is also not in dispute that biometric system was introduced in the department w.e.f. 01st June, 2014 which is clear from the paragraph 25 of the 18 OA No.87/2023 reply of the respondents, whereas, according to the respondents, the period in question was 01 st May, 2014 to 01st April, 2018, meaning thereby, prior to implementation of biometric attendance record, the period of absenteeism has been taken into consideration by the authorities. In reply paragraph No.27, it was specifically admitted by the respondents that "It is accepted that the applicant's husband had attended the duty, performed the recordings etc. but it is denied that he was present in the office for full day/office hours on many occasions, as per bio- metric records", meaning thereby, the presence and working of the deceased employee are not in dispute during said period but it appears that only dispute was raised is he was not present for full day/office hours on many occasions. There is no specification in respect of time period of such day's/dates on which deceased employee was not present.

12. Further, looking to the Office Memorandum dated 21st November, 2014, more particularly, para 4 it is clear that the said procedure was introduced as an enabling platform and, therefore, it can be safely presumed that the recording of manual attendance during the said period was not totally closed or prohibited. Further, till transfer to Mumbai on 23rd April, 2018, there was no quarrel about the alleged absent of the applicant from 01st May, 2014 to 01st April, 2018. From the records, it is also clear that in pursuance of the order passed in OA No.688/2018 on 28th November, 2018, a detailed representation dated 07th December, 2018 was filed by the applicant explaining actual factual position alongwith work done by the applicant during the period in question. Further, a chart has been appended alongwith representation to show and substantiate that the deceased employee had worked actually during the said period. However, 20 OA No.87/2023 looking to the impugned order dated 01 st February, 2019, it is clear that the learned authority has not taken care of this chart and factual position while deciding the representation. Even assuming that there was some non-adherence to the instructions contained in circular regarding attendance which is according to the violation of Conduct Rules than for all purpose it was obligatory on the part of the departmental authorities to conduct proper inquiry prior to reaching to the conclusion that the deceased employee was unauthorizedly absent during the period in question. Even Office Memorandum dated 22nd June, 2010 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training) clearly states about initiation of departmental enquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 in such cases. However, no such procedure has been adopted by the authorities and, therefore, the impugned 21 OA No.87/2023 Memorandums dated 14th May, 2018 (Annexure A-1), 06th July, 2018 (Annexure A-2) and speaking order dated 01st February, 2019 (Annexure A-3) are unsustainable in the eye of law.

13. Now the question requires for consideration by the Tribunal is whether the present applicant is entitled for all the retiral dues. Since the impugned Memorandums and speaking order are held to be unsustainable, under these circumstances, after the death of the deceased employee, the present applicant is eligible and entitled to get all the retiral statutory dues in accordance with law. Because any post retiral dues can only be withheld as per statutory rules and that too only after following due procedure and law under said rules.

14. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Anjana Vs. 22 OA No.87/2023 Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. decided on 18th March, 2024 in CWP-9088- 2020(O&M) in which the Hon'ble High Court on similar issue was pleased to direct the said authorities to release the retiral benefits to the said applicant who is wife of deceased employee. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein as under:

"32. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Deokinandan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others", 1971(2) SCC 330, held that pension is not a bounty of the State and is rather a valuable right. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

"31. The matter again came up before a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in K.R. Erry v. The State of Punjab, ILR (1967) Punj & Har 278. The High Court had to consider the nature of the right of an officer to get pension. The majority quoted with approval the principles laid down in the two earlier decisions of the same High Court, referred to above, and held that the pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet-will and pleasure of the Government and the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a Government servant. It was further held by the majority that even though an opportunity had already been afforded to the officer on an earlier occasion for showing cause against the 23 OA No.87/2023 imposition of penalty for lapse or misconduct on his part and he has been found guilty, nevertheless, when a cut is sought to be imposed in the quantum of pension payable to an officer on the basis of misconduct already proved against him, a further opportunity to show cause in that regard must be given to the officer. This view regarding the giving of further opportunity was expressed by the learned Judges on the basis of the relevant Punjab Civil Service Rules. But the learned Chief Justice in his dissenting judgment was not prepared to agree with the majority that under such circumstances a further opportunity should be given to an officer when a reduction in the amount of pension payable is made by the State. It is not necessary for us in the case on hand, to consider the question whether before taking action by way of reducing or denying the pension on the basis of disciplinary action already taken, a further notice to show cause should be given to an officer. That question does not arise for consideration before us. Nor are we concerned with the further question regarding the procedure, if any, to be adopted by the authorities before reducing or withholding the pension for the first time after the retirement of an officer. Hence we express no opinion regarding the views expressed by the majority and the minority Judges in the above Punjab High Court decision, on this aspect. But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet-will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant.

32. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde and another, AIR 1968 SC 1053 had to consider the question whether a "cash grant" is "property" within the meaning of that expression in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of 24 OA No.87/2023 the Constitution. This Court held that it was property, observing "it is obvious that a right to sum of money is property".

33. Thereafter, in "State of Kerala Vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair", (1985) 1 SCC 429, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that pension and gratuity are no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights and property, in their hands. This authoritative law was thereafter again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dr. Uma Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and another", 1999 (3) SCC 438.

34. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in another authoritative judgment passed in "State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another". 2013(12) SCC 210 again discussed the entire law regarding valuable rights pertaining to the grant of pensionary benefits. Para Nos.8 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

"8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara and Ors. Vs. Union of India; (1983) 1 SCC 305 by Justice D.A. Desai, who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words:

"18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalized? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service?

19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition.

20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 330 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitles to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon any one's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied maters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab and Another Vs. Iqbal Singh(1976) 2 SCC 1".

It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of "property". This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in "property". Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under:

"300-A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."

Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the applellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced."

35. In "Tukaram Kana Joshi and other through Power of Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C. and others", 2013(1) SCC 353, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that right to property is now considered to be not only a Constitutional or a Statutory Right but also a human right. Para 9 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

"9. The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or a statutory right but also a human right. Though, it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental right. Human rights are considered to be in realm of individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment etc. Now however, human rights are gaining an even greater multi faceted dimension. The right to property is considered very much to be a part of such new dimension. (Vide:

Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007)10 SCC 488; Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010)10 SCC 43; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011)7 SCC 639, State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011)10 SCC 404 and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011)9 SCC 354.

36. In the present case, it is ex facie clear that the respondent-CONFED while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-13) has not only violated the Statutory provisions but there has been a direct infraction of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is also a settled law that right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to livelihood.

37. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Olga Tellis and others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 held that right to life includes right to livelihood. It was observed that an equally important facet of right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the Constitutional Right of life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation."

15. In the present case, even according to the respondents, the deceased employee was A Top- grade Artist. However, during his life time for alleged unauthorized absenteeism, he was subjected to arbitrary action of the respondents, in fact, the averments on record shows that after 28 OA No.87/2023 transfer to Mumbai for certain period, the department has not released the amount of salary to the deceased employee. The said action of the respondents was certainly arbitrary, unsustainable and unfair and after the death of the deceased employee, communication dated 20 th July, 2021 (Annexure A-4) withholding the amount of gratuity and proposed recovery of remaining amount from the statutory dues of the deceased employee is also arbitrary and unreasonable. The impugned communication dated 20th July, 2021 (Annexure A-4) is quashed and set aside. Therefore, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred in the case of Anjana (supra), the respondents are directed to refund the amount, which already recovered and release all post retiral dues of the deceased employee to the applicant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order with interest @6% per annum. 29 OA No.87/2023

16. With the aforesaid terms and directions, the Original Application is allowed. Pending Mas, if any, stand closed. No costs.

(Umesh Gajankush) Member (J) ma.

Milan DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 0815a10efc18484c96f92d4cf96b158b, Phone= 30f7d919c844ed7f75e7bc56633df96108338768adae5 582338f0d13d4f0f1dc, PostalCode=401203, S= Jackson Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER= 6b7c9269fe100118bd94c76380691e4802b189a40578 bdd0fd757c8b8babf6f4, CN=Milan Jackson Alphanso Reason: I am the author of this document Alphanso Location:

Date: 2025.03.27 10:11:27+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0