Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Madhav Jagannath Shirsat vs M/O Defence on 2 May, 2019
T OA No.79) De oe
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.210/00791/2013
Dated this Thursday , the 2 day of May, 2019
CORAM : DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI, MEMBER (ADMINISTRATIVE)
R.N.SINGH, MEMBER (TUDICIAL)
i, Madhav Jagannath Shirsat, 35-A, Mali Gall,
Near Hanuman Temple, Wadala Gaon, Nasik 422 006.
2. Ananda Nimba Shewale, 6, Shree Krishna Height
Near Dream Castle Makhamalabad Road,
Panchvati, Nasik 422 063. .
Office Address : Faculty of Doctrine & Tactics
Schoal of Artifiery, Devlali 422 401. . Applicant
(By Advecate Shri RP Saxena}
FERSUS
{. _ Unton of India, through The Secretary
to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi 110 001.
bo
General Director of Arty (Arty-10)
General Staff Branch,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army),
DHO, PO, New Delhi 110 O11.
3, The Commandant, HQs School of Artillery,
Devieli 422 401,
a. | The Chief Instructor
Faculty of Doctrine & Tactics,
School of Artillery, Deviali 422 401.
Lay
Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
Southern Command. No.] Finance Road,
Pune 411 601. .. Respondents
(By Advocate Shri RR Shetly and
Shri NA Rajparokit}
Order reserved on : 06.03, 2019
Order delivered an: 62.05.2019
"ORDER
Per: De Bhagwan Sahai, Member (Administrative) Shri Machav dagannath Shirsat and Shri Ananda Nimoa Shewale working with School of 2 er OAN6.791/2013 :
Artillery, Devlali, Nashik have filed this OA on 19.11.2013. They seek declaration that they are entitied to equal pay for equa al work and thus for the same pay as granted to Sand Model Makers of "4 Armoured €s $ "ps Centre & School, Ahmednagar;
direction to the respondents to fix notionally thelr pay in the pay scale as granted to the Sand m n fees Model Makers with effect from O1.01.1986, anc Fay Band I with Grade Pay of Rs.2,000/- angteas | © of Rs.i,900/- with effect from 01.01.2006 with arrears of pay, and direction to the respondents tO grant them financial upgradation accordingly under ACP / MACP Schemes.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case :~-
ity) 2{a). The appl licants Nos.l and 2 have stated that they were appointed as Model Makers (Group 7 \\ "Ch post) with the School of Artillery £ 30.11.1977 and 98.10.1983, respe ctively (Annex Ari}. They have further submitted that since their appointment they have been preparing sand models for training purposes which are used for discussion in sand pit in the School of $}) fet e Artillery, Devi 2{b),. The applicants have further stated that QA No. 791/2013 tod Armoured Corps Centre and School, Ahmednagar and the Model Makers (i.e. the applicants) from pricr cy to O1.01.1986 have been as follows i-
From : Pay seales ''Model Makers Prior to 1986 Rs.260-290-EB- 400/-
from 1986 Rs.950-1,500/- from 01.01.1996 |Rs.3,050-4,590/- from 01.01.2006 Rs.5,200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.1,900/-_ Sand Model Prior to 1986 | Rs.260-300-EB- 430/- Makers from 1986 Rs.975-1,540/-
from 01.01.1996 .Rs.3,200-4,900/-
from 01.01.2006 7 Rs.5,200-20,200/- with Grade Pay vot Rs,2,000/-
2{e). The applicants have stated that when the diserepancy of the pay scales came to their notice, they gubmitted a representation on 14.05.2010 requesting for equality and parity of pay with the sand Model Makers of the Armoured Corps Centra and School, Ahmednagar. Their representations were ferwarded by the respondent No.4 i.e. Chief Instructor, Faculty of Doctrine & Tactics, School of Artillery, Deviaii for taking up their case for upgradation of Grade Pay 'Controller of Defence 4 OA No.791/2013 of BRs.4,200/- after two financial upgradations under the ACP / MACE Schemes.
2(d). Subsequently, the. respondent No.3 forwarded the case of the applicants to Principal respondent No.9 to eonfitm whether after two upgradations under MACP Scheme, the Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- can be granted to the applicants on the same basis as those of the Sand Model Makers (Annex A-4). Thereafter, reminders were alse gant to the respondent No.5. When asked for, service books of the applicants were alse sent to respondent No.5 for examination. The details of rh duties oc Sand Model Makers were also sent to Gas respondent No. by Headquarters Armoured Corps Center and School, Ahmednagar on 05.02.2012.
2Zfe). However, om 05.10.2012, the asponden No.e b.e. Director General of Artillery, Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of Defence applicants to respondent No.3 stating that in view of ambiquous proposition and recomme ndation the case cannot be considered further.
Subsequently, with latter dated 19.03.2018, the respondent No.<z forwarded to the © OA No. 7S 1/2013 tas respondent No.3 @ copy of the order regarding merger and redesignation of various common category posts aS per Vi Central Pay Commission recommendations. _. However, ain those common 'category posts, the post of the applicants was net included (Annex A-19 pages 41 to 47). The GS applicants claim that being aggrieved by failure of the respondents to merge and redesginate the _ common category posts of Sand Model Makers and Model Makers as per Vi Central Pay Commission recommendation to provide equal pay for equal work , the present OA has been filed. ay Contentions of the parties '~ s moantend that -
cr The applican 3f{a). two posts of Model. Makers (Group 'C'} are authorized to the School of Artillery, Devlali and two posts of Sand ot Model Makers are e authorized to Armoured Corps Pentre and School, Ahmednagar;
3(b). duties of Model Makers and Sand Model he ct fede G QO th Makers are the same i.e. for ey repara models for training of officers and these posts are isolated posts without any seope for promotion. The variations in the pay scales of the posts of Model Makers and Sand Model Makers ra re s have persisted in to 6 Central Fay Commission recommendations. However, the
143) applicants' claim is justified for the same cal $s ® of pay with the Sana Model Makers with effect from 01.01.1986 based on the principle of equal pay for equal work along;
the same pay scale and pay rh 3fa). denial 6 band plus grade pay to the applicants as she Sand Model Makers is tantamount.
S:
sanctioned t o qd ¢ to violatien of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;
3id). the distinction being made by the respondents petwean the Sand Model Makers and Model Makers is irrational, unintelligible, unjust and unfair because the employees of same skilled grade cannot be treated differently:
3fe). . although the doctrine of equal Fay for equal Work is not expressly declared a 2 = . ART 2 wa ey} ~ =% 9s geo he yey toast fundamental right under the Consticurien, but x Article 39{d}, read with Articles 14 and 16 of she Constitution, declares the constitutional goal enjoining the state not to deny any person equality before law in matters related 6 employment including the scales of pay. Since the applicants are equal to the Sand Model Maxers 7 ~ OAN0.791/2013 "of the Armoured Corps Centre & School, Ahmednagar t in every respect but they have been denied equality in stale of pay, it is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution;
3(f). recommendation of VI Central Pay Commission for merger and redesignation of common o category posts under Defence Establishments has been considered by a Committes cons stituted by the Government for this purpose. Based on recommendation of that Committee, the order dated 27.02.2012 was issued by Ministry of Defence, Government of India but the posts. of common category hoe. Sand Model Maker and Model Maker have not been included an that order; and 3(g). the case of the applicants is that merger and redesignation of the common category posts of the Sand Model Maker and the Model Maker deserve consideration an id fer this purpose the Tribunal should issue appropriate direction to the respondents. The respondents have not placed on record Any material about functional distinction between the Model Maker and the Sand Model Maker. The claim of the respondents is not correct that the Tribunal cannot adjudicate upon the claim of the apolicants.
8 , . QA No 7912013 3fh). . The applicants have attempted to benefit from the ADEN Court view taken in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (1982) 1 S8CC 618 decided on 22.02.1982. In para rh 8 oO that decision, it was held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a canstitutional goal. Article S@i{d} of ..the.
Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" which means equal pay for equal work for everyone, as between the two Sexes, Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or equal protection of the law and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality © of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something te everyone. To the vast ma the eaquality clauses of the Censtitution will Ave some substance if equal work means equal OOOO LL LLLLLLALLCLDLLLLLLLLLCLLOLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLCLLLCCLLLOLLL LLL @ 9 OA No. 7923 Further tried to rj my iB py o re ps C a % pa ot ih a D rom the Apex Court view in case of Jad th benefit Dey Gupta Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided th the lecturer s* on 03.09.1997, which déalt wi "pay scales.
3fi). Therefore, the applicants contend that this O.A. cannot be {iemissed on the ground of limitation and they are entitled for payment of aifference in wages for a period of three years OA. Therefore, the ow preceding to filing of this OA should be allowed.
The respondents in their reply contend that >
35). the Model Makers posted with the School of Artillery, Deviali are appointed as per SRO 67, i... the OBDirectorate and Class IV post} Recruitment Rules, i987 directorate General of Artillery (Draughts-man Grade If, Model Maker and Laboraters Assistants) Reeruitment Rules, 2002. They the Sand. Model Makers are appointed with the Armoured Corps Centre, Ahmednagar under spo. 60 8G) dated 25.02.
the recruitment rules of. the Model
--
Therefore, as Makers and Sand Model Makers are separate and Wo -- QANo.791/2013 distinct, the applicants are mot entitied for the Same pay scales as those of the Sand Model Makers; 3{k}. the case of equal pay for equal work is dependent on the same Recruitment Rules and selection process. However, in case of the applicants and the Sand Model Makers, the Recruitment Rules and the recruitment process are diiferent and, therefore, the principle of equal 'pay for equal work cannot be applied for these two di fferent categories of posts. The applicants have not been a able to clustify that the posts of Model Maker and Sand Model Maker are identical. The Recruitment of the Model Makers and the Sand Model Makers has been in existence for last more than four decades and therefore, the attempt of the apolicants to invoke now the ae oe © jurisdiction of the Tribunal after such a gras' delay of more than four decades cannot be allowed. Hence the present O.A. being barred by 31}. &s per the Recruitment Rules, 2002, educational and other qualifications required for ondary Schosl oy t £65) CPs
a) "3 Certificate, ITI training {as preferable) and experience in making of models. However fy ct ne o SLES GULLS ® hoo OANo.791/2013 educational qualifications: required for Recruitment of the Sand Model Makers consist of Matriculation or its equivalent with experience of three years in drawing end making of Sand Models. Because of this distinction in requirement for the recruitment of the Sand Model Makers, and the Model Makers, the difference in their pay scales has been maintained for a long time;
3im). based on the representation of the applicants, the Principal Controller of Defence Aecounts, Pune had sought Service Books of the Model Makers of the Artillery School, Deviali and the Sand Model Makers of the Armoured Corps Centre and School, Ahmednagar vide letter dated 19.05.2011 and after studying of the Service Books, the Pr.CDA replied on 24.08.2011 (Exhibit R-5) with the remarks that there LS basic difference in two pay scales of the Sand Model Maker and the Modei Maker at the time of their recruitment itself i.e. the pay in the entry grade and therefore, after granting three MACE, the Sand Model Maker will draw Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- and the Model Maker will draw the Grads Pay of Rs.2,800/- only. Herice this'is the ele QA Na-791/2013 final position about the grant of different grade pay to the two categories of posts:
x 3in). the present applicants never mace any representation before any af the Central Fay 'Commissions, including VII Central Pay Commission seeking parity in pay scale with the Sand Model Makers and the applicants have never been paid salary on par with the Sand Model Makers as per the following Chart (on page 84) t- .
SL Post 1" ge | 3 4" gt 6"
Na. 7 cre Cree CPC CPC CPC CPC
(a) (Model | Rs.55-3- /Rs.110- | Rs.260-6- Rs.950-|Rs.3050 |PB-1 Makers §5-EB- §4-150- (290-EB-6- |20- ~73- Rs.5200 1 4.495.5- BB-4d- | 290-EB-6- 11150- (3950- | -20200 150 170-5- (326-8-360- | 25- 80-4590 (GP 180-EB-/EB-8-390- (1500 Rs. 1900 (5-200 10-400 The difference in the Grade Pay granted under the MACP is as shown below Sand Model Makers Model Makers Sr No. | Pay Scales MACP Pay Scales MACP | {Rs.) (HO ACCES, (Rs.} (HQ School of Arty,
- Ahmednagar) Deviali {a} UECPC Initial Pay -Rs.2000 (260-400 Initial Pay--Rs. 1900 Rs.260-430 (1S MACP--Rs.2400 is MACP-- Rs, 2000 > * nda dg age = Ny " and CP AC DLP ss TANGO Rs.o7s-is40 4 MACP~ Rs.4200 3°? MACP-Rs.2860 (cy) ¥CPC 3050-4590 Rs.320-4900 (dy VECPC §200-20200 Rs. 8260-20290 + GP 1800/-
+ GP 2000!-
LLL ULE ~ 13 - OANA 20TS 3fa). . the pay scales of employse are decided.
, by time and motion study engineers and are best left to the Government. Therefore, while the €ribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of the applicants and respondents but the oe stification for the difference in the pay scales of the Sand Model Makers and Model MM:
as ex xplained above, should be upheld. Since the differe ance in the Recruitment Rules, duties and esponsibilities, work load of the Model Maker and the Sand Model Makers have not been equated by the applicants, the question of setting up a case for equal pay for equal work does not arise.
Therefore, the OA should be dismissed. '
4. Analysis and conelusions :~ from a careful consideration of the contentions in the OA, details in Lis annexes and rejoinder of. the applicar ts, and reply of the respondents, the conclusive position emerges as follows i-
4(a}. The applicants sre working as the Model Makers with the Artillery School, Devieli. They are seeking parity in pay scales and Grace Pay iss) ee i Cy ct ft ral o ~ ?B oe cS es) 8 wD Fs cr = @ rh poe wo S 5 d 'lal upgradation under ACP / MACP) -with the Sand Model Makers sosted x themselves in para 4.2 CA Na 7OL/2013° Centre & School, time prior to O1.01.1986 based on tH recommendations of ail the Central Pay Commissions, their pay scales have been consistently lower than Makers. This means & ~ treatment to the Mode ;
bho ok Makers arose from a time 4(b). However, in applicants made a representa time only in 2010, which Makers and Sand Mode aven before 01.01.1986 yse of the Sand Model ause of differential means in service with the lower he 2 5 pay of this, the ~ bo < 3 Che ak te wend ~4 isp) OQ oe ps @ w mm be re CF years). Viewed in of the applicants for parity in pay scales and grade Model Makers only after 2010 stale claim. The applicants a ~ We i ney " et earlier the odifferences After making their repres they have approached this time only hroug ine November, 2013. In spite « 0 . \\ pay with the sa ig essentially a eresent OA i.e. in fy ¥% x eh a long deiay in EEE iS -- OA Na 79/2013 o filing the present OR after the actual cause of action having arisen prior te L986, the applicants have not even submitted an application for condon tation of such ileng delay. Therefore, their claim is c¢ certainly stale and time-barred and the long delay cannot be condoned.
4fe). The qualifications required at the time of reoruitment of the Model Makers and the Sand Model Makers are also distinct, they are not identical. Rs submitted by the respotr ndents, the required minimum aducational qualification for the Model Maker is matriculation or equivalent, three years Diploma Cartificate in Draughtsmanship from iTt joreferabile) and experience in making models. However, for the Gand Model Makers, the minimum educational and other qualifications required are matriculate oF equivalent and must have thres years ezperience in drawing and making of sand models.
4(d). As regards the duties na functional responsibilities of the Model Makers, they consist of preparing sand models as directed by ing staff, proper maintenance and ct the direc functioning of sand model rooms, 48ccount and store maintenance and functioning of equipment, SSSR 16 OA No.7912013 STANCE ana Hh boards, lecturer stand, sitting projecting demands of all Medel rooms, stores ir advance adequate stocking of model room, Stores atc.
However, the duties and responsibilities th;
ct os % the Bw met 3] i 69] Ch o 3 {H "a ct ca rh ce k ial fev e Sand Model preparation of all Sand Models for all the courses, preparation of mini training areas, preparation of enlargement of the course camps, Lp briefing, etc. These details reveal that nature of the duties and responsibilities of these two posts are not axactly the same, there is qualitative difference in them. Hence there is a rational basis for maintaining the different pay scales for them based on intelligible 4f{e). Based on the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission, merger of some Common was taken up. A committee was constituted for this purpose, based. on the recommendations of © © OEE Vv OA No. 79/2013 3 { and recommended merger and redesignation of some t of them, it is cbvious that the Committee did not think it proper and justified to merge anc redesignate the posts of the Model Makers and the 'sand Model Makers. Since this has been done by the respondents based on in-depth consideration of the subject by the Committee appointed for this purpose, we go not fina any justification in the claim of the applicants to direct merger and redesignation of these two cypes of the posts.
Aff). In view of the above details, we conclude that the respondents have rightly Grade Pay of the applicants with those of the Sand Model Makers. We do not find any flaw in the retention of this distinction.
4(g}. In the case law relied upon by the applicants 1.8. Union of India and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Gond reported in (2014) 13 scc 588 decided on 25.07.2013, the Apex Court view was in een om a different context when no material had 1 D 3 uNcrAGN ih placed before the Tribunal about the distinction between the concerned posts of Junior Pranstators working with the office of tne Cammissioner of © goo OA No.791/2013 ty those working in the Central Sec Fretariat. Since
-ant facts, it 1s re % ou this case law was based on diffe {tr not applicable in the present case. Similarly, in the other case saw cited 'by the applicants i.e. Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (1982) 1 scC 618 decided on 22.02.1982 (Supra}, the Apex Court had viewed the classification between drivers of Delhi "Police Foree and Central Government 45 unreasonable, \ However, in the present case, not anily the Recruitment Rules and eligibility qualifications oA re are different for the posts of Model Makers an the Sand Model Makers, even their functional 4 responsibilities are distinct in many respects. Hence the diffe ce in the pay scales and 'grade pay are justified.
relied on followand ath). The respondents hav * Th four case laws to support their contentions --
Tn the State of M.P. And Another Vs. % f Ve eet Pramod Bhartiya and Others reported in AIR 1923 SC 286 : {1993} 1 SCC 539 decided on 08.10.1992, the Apex Court view was that. what is more important and crucial is whether the concerned employees discharged similar duties, functions and responsibility. The stress is upon the SOMMMLLOOLLLOOLLUOOOLLOOLLLLLLALLLLLECLLLUOOLUOEOLLOL 19 . OA No. 7912013 similarity of skill, .effert anc responsibility when performed under similar conditions. At that time, the Apex Court had aiso xeferred ta the ease law relied upon by the present applicants i.e. Randhir Singh and several others decision eH and emphasized that the differentiation has to be justified in view of the nature and types of work done on intelligible basis. When equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula, if it has aA rational nexus with the object sought for, a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who ies has to be fet are charged with fixing the pay sca left with them and it cannot pe interfered with Sy by the Court unless it dis demonstrated: that either it is irrational or basec on no basis or arrived male Fide either in law or in fact.
{ii} In the case of Union of India Vs, Pradip Kumar Dey reported in 2000 STPL (LE) 28735 8C :
(2000) & scc 580 decided on 08.21.2000, the Apex Court held that when the IV Central ay Commission had gone deep ints yarious aspects of 4 the pay structure of different categories of the amplioyees of the Central Government, the claim of the respondents on the principle of "aqual pay 20 , CUA OLY L201 for equal work" was not tenable having regard to rs various distinguishable factors. The equation of fog ft with the t wd
48) rh posts with equation of pay must be Executive Government. Tt must be determined by the experts bodies, they will be the best judges to evaluate the nature of duties and esponsibilities of posts. if there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it.
(ii3} In the case of P.U. Joshi and others vs Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Others, reported in 2002 STPL (LE) 31843 SC : AIR 2003 SC P156 decided on 19.12.2002, the Apex Court view was that the questions relating to the Constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categorie their creation / abolition, oD oy prescription of qualifications and othe conditions of service, neluding avenues of m promotions and criteria to be fulfilied for such CE 3 promotions, pertain to the field of Policy and are within the exclusive direction and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to 5 Sint ade 4 % mame ye tot SIS . Joa yes ' ete the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the fet Constitution of India and it is not for the Statutory Tribunals, at any rate, to direct the .
21 | OANo.791/2013Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State.
Similarly tt as well within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition / substitution the qualifica tions, eligibility criteria and other conditions of w ip rm % ft oO GB je.
03a fee o oh.
fete ng avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules ig entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcete departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or © amalgamation as well ag reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres / categories of service, as may be nequired from time to time by abolishing axisting cadres / posts and creating new cadres / posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to Claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and Rann bed Pak OA No. FOL 13 except for ensuring or safeguarding rights of au @ 2 snefits already earned, acquired or acorue:
particular point of time. A Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the "State to amend, alter and bring into force new ¢ a rules telating to even an existing service;
bo.
iivi In the case of State Bank of India and Another Vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu and Others reported in 20028 TPL {LE) 31049 SC : AIR 2002 SC 1955 decided © rr on 16.04.2002, the Apex Court view was thak the pa ~ . ty ea tiger sy ie ya : A nad = 3 iy 4 differenme between probationary officers ana trainee WF EROS She ne Nenad enc sete fark Law iFficers OGPrrE~eerse Ol wre ONE FLEETS ena ass Serankh Law GEPLecers on the other was based on intelligible adlff @ rr p ren 3 ake and has rational nexus with the object soug ght ba be Ss achieved. re is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. Sa. Long as gwoh value judgment {is made bona fide, reasonably On Lanai mexus C an intelligible criterion which has @ rat with the opiech of aifferentiation, such differentiation will mot amount to Siserimination.
Pee os af te 4 sy on oy Y * Shs The differentiation in pay scales of persons Naiaing ¥ ~ i ~ 0% = a wage game posts and performing Simiis work on the basis * : ao see x ye rom] reliability amd confidentially would be a valida 42 30-0 sexe foe pee ALELerentiarcion.
2 ra na fa Ae fey at we os os eer te es a" . we bie ae 4fi}. Viewed in the Light ef the above case laws 23 OA No. 79/2013 yelied upon by the respondents toa support their eontentions that the difference in pay scale and grade pay of Model ef Artillery, Deviali and the Sarid Model Makers employed with Armoured Corps Centre and Schools, Ahmednagar, Wwe find A and rational basi v acceptable. We are discrimination agein that it is based on intelligible . Te ais fully justified and anable to discern any aspect ¢f
- % wg Des wy a T53 ow, mm? he et the agglicants. We ise Ree that mone of the Seven Central Pay Commissions has recommended parity in pay scales of af the posts. Even merger and redesigné te under befence oS o ih ct merit im the claims et in VLEW hese two Types ct the committee set up to examine oO its C cy > fy oO o <g b f a mS rh;
rt) ts ® an)
v) > tp "
s ie senciude that not only the claim of the applicants is totally stale and time-barred, there igs no merit in the OB. Hence, it deserves dismi ih eH Pe) } if + §, Decision in"
¥ , Tre Of 1S delay and on merits.
coske , oer ~ ae (RN Singh) Member (Judicial) diemissed for unjustified Long k x eg to bear their own "+ eat cr.
et The part (Dr. Bhagwan Sehaiy~ <3 Member (Administrative)