Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
K V Deepak vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes on 22 February, 2023
1 OA 787/2021 & batch
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00787/2021, OA/310/00020/2021, OA/310/00047/2021 &
OA/310/00050/2021
nd
Dated Wednesday the 22 day of February Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. MANJULA DAS, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. T. JACOB, Member (A)
OA 787/2021 :-
1. Ajay Kumar Choudhary,
2. Mayank Kumar Sharma,
3. Deepika Harish,
4. Baditha Pothu Raju,
5. Mita Suter,
6. Sidharth Rajoria,
7. Kshitij Ranjan,
8. Sravan Kumar Reddy V,
9. Saibhik Das. ....Applicants
By Advocate M/s. TVJ Associates
Vs
1.Union of India,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
rep by the Chairman,
North Block, New Delhi 110021.
2.Union of India,
rep by its Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
New Delhi 110011.
3.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
(Tamil Nadu & Puducherry),
No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. V. Vijay Shankar
2 OA 787/2021 & batch
OA 20/2021 :-
1. R.Ramakrishnan,
2. Alok Pratap,
3. Rajnish Kumar Pandey,
4. Ravi Shankar,
5. K.Chandrasekaran,
6. D.Selvaraj,
7. Ganesh Kumar,
8. Chintala Syam Prasad,
9. Ajay Kumar Vaidya,
10.Umesh Kumar Barnwal,
11.Amil Kumar Das,
12.Md. Sharfaraz,
13.R.Devarajan,
14.Shiv Prakash,
15.V. Rajan,
16.Manoj Raj Minz,
17.Nagendra Singh Rawat,
18.KER Chandrasekar,
19.C.S.Saravanan,
20.C.S.Jayakumar. ....Applicants
By Advocate M/s. TVJ Associates
Vs
1.Union of India,
rep by the Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi.
2.The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi 110011.
3.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, TN & P,
121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. V. Vijay Shankar
3 OA 787/2021 & batch
OA 47/2021 :-
1. Deepak KV,
2. Sudhanshu Srivastava,
3. Ramsevak Vishwakarma. ....Applicants
By Advocate M/s. TVJ Associates
Vs
1.Union of India, rep by the Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi.
3.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
(Tamil Nadu & Puducherry),
No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. V. Vijay Shankar
OA 50/2021 :-
1. Atul Kumar,
2. V.Alagarswamy,
3. M.Prithivi Raja,
4. Rakesh Kumar,
5. J.Rajaram. ....Applicants
By Advocate M/s. TVJ Associates
Vs
1.Union of India,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
rep by the Chairman,
North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2.Union of India,
rep by its Secretary,
4 OA 787/2021 & batch
Department of Personnel & Training,
New Delhi 110011.
3.The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
(Tamil Nadu & Puducherry),
No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. V. Vijay Shankar
5 OA 787/2021 & batch
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Member(J)) Since the subject matter and the relief prayed in all these OAs are similar, a common order is passed.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are delineated from OA 787/2021 which is taken as a lead case.
3. The reliefs prayed for by the applicants in OA 787/2021 are as follows:-
"a. To CALL FOR THE RECORDS of the 3rd Respondent in 13.11.2020 and C.No.90(12)/Estt./Seniority/2020 dated 07.01.2021 relating to the draft revised seniority lists in the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors and SET ASIDE THE SAME.
b. TO CALL FOR THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER of the 3rd Respondent in No. 301/2020 dated 18.11.2020, 309/2020 dated 20.11.2020, 311/2020 dated 24.11.2020, 339/2020 dated 17.12.2020 & 340/2020 dated 17.12.2020 promoting Income Tax Inspectors to the cadre of Income Tax Officers and SET ASIDE THE SAME.
c. To pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice."
4. The facts of the case are as under:-
i. The Applicants wrote the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2012, for the post of Inspector of Income-tax. The requisition to the SSC, notification by the SSC and the preliminary examination were all conducted in the year 2012 itself. The Applicants were successful and were appointed as 'Direct Recruit' Inspectors of Income Tax in the year 2013-14.
ii. Even prior to the notification for CGLE 2012, the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a letter on 08.09.2004, to all the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Erstwhile Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Cadre 6 OA 787/2021 & batch Controlling Authority) stating that seniority of Direct Recruit Inspectors would be reckoned with reference to the date of initiation of recruitment process. In this letter, the Board had further directed all the CCIT (CCA) including the Respondent No.3, to re-fix the seniority of Direct Recruit Inspectors and Promotee Inspectors accordingly.
iii. Thereafter the Board noted vide its letter dated 22.02.2005 that different CCITS(CCA) had followed different interpretation of the 1986 O.M. and permitted the CCITS(CCA) to take steps to fix seniority, as they had followed hitherto. However it was clearly stated that such seniority fixed would be subject to outcome of the case in Union of India & Ors. Vs N.R. Parmar, pending before the Apex Court.
iv. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced judgment in N.R.Parmar Case on 27.11.2012. It was clearly held that for the purpose of seniority of DR Inspectors the year in which the vacancy was reported and steps taken, should be taken as the relevant year/recruitment year. On the said basis, 2012-13 would be the relevant year for the purpose of fixing seniority for the Applicants. v. The Respondents issued seniority list for the Applicants on 09.12.2015. They were rightly placed in the panel year 2012-13, on the basis of N.R.Parmar Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This was the first seniority list issued for the Applicants, after their selection in the year 2012. vi. The DR Inspectors of CGLE, 2005 Batch, after representation and also a direction by the Tribunal to consider the representation, in the light of the 7 OA 787/2021 & batch judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.R.Parmar and in accordance with law. The Respondent No. 3 disposed off the representations of the DR Inspectors of CGLE, 2005 Batch without giving effect to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
vi. Meanwhile, DoPT issued O.M. dated 04.03.2014 in pursuance of N.R.Parmar judgment laying down the principles for determination of inter se seniority of the DR Inspectors and the PR Inspectors. DoPT had also clarified to the Department of Revenue that the entire issue of seniority of officers of Income Tax Department would have to be re-visited in compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.R.Parmar Case. This clarification was issued by the Board to all its PCCIT by letter dated 06.06.2014. Thus Board had directed all PCCITs to determine and fix the seniority of DR and PR Inspectors in terms of 2014 OM and also the clarification of DoPT to comply with the directions of Supreme Court in N.R.Parmar Case.
vii. In as much as their representation was considered dehors N.R.Parmar Judgment, the DR Inspectors of CGLE, 2005 Batch challenged the seniority list published on 20.12.2012, in O.A. 654 of 2014 before this Tribunal. This Hon'ble Tribunal by order dated 18.11.2014 directed the Respondents to revise the inter- se seniority of Inspectors of Income Tax in accordance with the law laid down in N.R.Parmar's Case and the DoPT O.M. Dated 04.03.2014 read with CBDT letter dated 29.09.2014.
8 OA 787/2021 & batch viii. The Respondents compliance with order in O.A.654/2014 published a draft revised seniority list of Inspectors upto panel year 2005-06 Vide C. No. 90(12)/Estt./Sen/2014-15 dated 22.01.2015.
ix. As far as Applicants batch is concerned, the 3rd Respondent issued a revised seniority list dated 09.12.2015 whereby the Applicants' seniority was fixed as per the year of initiation of recruitment i.e.2012-13. Thus, the seniority of the Applicants came to be drawn, for the first time on 09.12.2015. This also became final. Nearly after 4 years, the Board issued a letter dated 27.05.2019, purportedly on the basis of the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Veena Kothawale Vs UOI. The Delhi High Court, on the facts of that case, held that N.R.Parmar order was to be implemented prospectively and seniority already settled should not be unsettled. The said letter also directed for review of DPCs conducted between 2008 and 27.11.2012.
x. The 3rd Respondent by letter dated 26.08.2019 constituted a Task Force for giving effect to the Board's letter dated 27.05.2019. On coming to know about the same, some of the DR Inspectors of CGLE, 2005 batch filed a representation to the 1st and 3rd Respondents clearly pointing out that the understanding of the Respondents as reflected in certain paras of the letter are contrary and bad in law. In any event it was pointed out that the said letter would not be applicable to them as their 'seniority was never settled prior to the seniority list dated 09.12.2015. The representation requested the Respondents not to tinker with the seniority list of the Applicants, issued pursuant to this 9 OA 787/2021 & batch Tribunal's order, to follow N.R.Parmar's judgment.
xi. The Board in the face of representations of different stakeholders against its letter dated 27.05.2019, issued a letter dated 20.02.2020 stating that the opinion of the Law Ministry and the DOPT had been sought and all the CCITS (CCA) would be informed as and when instructions/guidelines would be issued. While the matter stood thus, the 3rd Respondent, without any instruction or guideline being issued as referred to in the Board's O.M. dated 20.02.2020, issued a Draft Seniority list dated 13.11.2020 on its own, wherein the settled seniority of the Applicants was sought to be revised by assigning the year 2013- 14 as the relevant year for fixing seniority, giving a go by to the Recruitment Year 2012-13 as the relevant year, fixed in the list I dated 09.12.2015. xii. The 3rd Respondent also effected promotions on the basis of the draft seniority list dated 13.11.2020. Even stranger is the fact that after making promotions on the basis of the draft list dated 13.11.2020, the 3rd Respondent on 07.01.2021 issued another draft seniority list for the panel years 2012-13 and sought for objections. The Applicants gave representations dated 15.01.2021 pointing out that their seniority was arrived at pursuant to N.R.Parmar judgment and list was issued on 09.12.2015. It was also issued pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A No. 654/2014 dated 18.11.2014 which was accepted and implemented by the department. Now after 5 years, the settled seniority list cannot be tampered with. The Applicants requested for withdrawal of the draft seniority list.
10 OA 787/2021 & batch xiii. Since promotions were already made on the basis of the draft seniority list dated 13.11.2020, and as the settled seniority list is sought to be un-settled contrary to law, which exercise is illegal, the present O.A. is being filed, challenging the same.
5. The respondents have filed reply opposing the relief claimed by the applicants and prayed for dismissal of the OAs as devoid of merits.
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that only in the year 2015, the seniority was finalised for the applicants, pursuant to the letter of CBDT dt. 22.02.2005, DoPT note dt. 01.05.2014, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar case and the order of this Tribunal in OA no. 654 of 2014 dt. 18.11.2014. On 13.11.2020, a draft seniority list was issued, pushing down the applicants on the basis of date of appointment instead of the year of recruitment. This was done on the basis of Veena Kothawale and K. Meghachandra Singh judgments. He submits that these two judgments are in personam. In any event, CBDT and DoPT have clearly held that as far as Income Tax Department is concerned the seniority has been under dispute and that the entire issue of seniority of the officers of Income Tax department would have to be revisted in compliance of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh. Even if the jugdment in case of K. Meghachandra Singh is upheld, still the same will not affect the 2015 seniority list of the applicants 11 OA 787/2021 & batch since the said judgment is only prospective which protects the seniority drawn earlier.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants relies on the following judgments :-
i. Order dt. 17.01.2023 of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 184/2022 in the case of Vivekeshwar Sharan Varshney & ors Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance & ors;
ii. Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dt. 14.12.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16161/2018 in the case of Hariharan & ors Vs. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao & ors.
9. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the draft revised seniority list dt. 13.11.2020 was in consequence to dt. 27.05.2019. The revised seniority list dt. 07.01.2021 was issued as there were some changes in seniority Inspectors of Income-tax of Panel Year in respect of Promotee on 13.11.2020. The question of withdrawing 2013-14 published the said seniority list does not arise since the CBDT has neither withdrawn nor issued any clarification / amendment to the said instructions. The draft revised seniority list dt. 13.11.2020 was in pursuant to the CBDT's letter dt. 27.05.2019 which was subsequently amended on 07.01.2021 (only with respect to Panel Year 2013-14). The said seniority lists which forms the basis for promotions made so far / to be made in future are strictly in accordance with the law. The process of Tier-I & TierIl examination of CGLE 2012 were concluded in September, 2012 and the vacancies for CGLE 2012 were notified on 12.10.2012 when the N.R. Parmar judgement was not 12 OA 787/2021 & batch pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, the principles contained in N.R. Parmar judgement that the date of reporting of vacancy to the recruitment agency forms the basis for determining the seniority is prospective only with effect from 27.11.2012. Hence, the principles of N.R. Parmar decision would be effectively applicable from the next immediate reporting of vacancy on or after 27.11.2012. The CBDT's letter dt.27.05.2019 was issued in light of the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Ms. Veena Kothawale which stipulates that N.R. Parmar decision shall be prospective and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Diwakar Singh. The ground raised by the applicants that CBDT's letter dt.27.05.2019 has no application in whatsoever manner is not correct. The draft revised seniority list dt.13.11.2020 was in pursuant to CBDT's letter dt.27.05.2019 (from the Panel Year 1990-91 to 2013-14) and the revised seniority list dt. 07.01.2021 (for the Panel Year 2013-14 only due to some change with respect to Promotee Inspectors). The revised seniority lists have no impact on the promotional prospects of the applicants as 8 of the 9 applicants had already been promoted to the cadre of Income-tax Officer. In the circumstances, the action of the Competent Authority is in order and in accordance with the extant law/rules. Hence, the OAs deserve to be dismissed.
10. The Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal while considering a similar issue in OA No. 219/2022 passed an order dt. 17.01.2022 which is relied upon by the applicants. The operative portion of the said order reads as hereunder:-
13 OA 787/2021 & batch "12.Having answered the factual issues, the legal issues are considered.
Considering the findings rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the judgment impugned therein, observed that the Hon'ble High Court has expressly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.R. Parmar¹, by applying the said decision to the facts of the case, the Hon'ble High Court held that:
"i. Requisition för 35+11 vacancies for direct recruits was sent to CBDT in the recruitment year 2009-10 itself;
ii. The recruitment for the said vacancies could not be held during the recruitment year 2009-10 for the reasons for which the candidates were not responsible;
iii. It is not the case that the eligible candidates for filling in the posts of direct recruits were not available in the year 2009-10;
iv. The seniority list dated 7th September 2016 which was prepared in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of N.R. Parmar was required to be restored with a clarification that those direct recruits who were eligible in the recruitment year 2009-10 should be interspaced with 53 promotees appointed during the year 2009-10; and v. The seniority list dated 7th September 2016, which was the final seniority list, could not be modified without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected candidates. Therefore, the amended seniority list dated 13th February 2018 was illegal."
Regarding the decision of K. Meghachandra Singh², the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 28 as under:
"28. With the greatest respect to the Hon'ble Bench which dealt with K. Meghachandra's case, we find that the attention of the Bench was not invited to the binding decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy. This decision was rendered by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges. This Court in the case of M. Subba Reddy dealt with the issue of the fitment of the promotees to the posts of Assistant Traffic Manager and Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the integrated seniority list. The majority judgment refers to the relevant Service Regulations which provide that seniority is reckonable from the date of appointment to service or grade. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said decision read thus:............"
Thereafter, considering the judgments in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. S.D. Gupta & Ors. and Mervyn Coutindo, has summarized the conclusion in para 33 and 34 as under:
"33. Thus, our conclusion can be summarised as under:
i. The decision in the case of K. Meghachandra requires reconsideration by a larger Bench in view of the fact that the binding decision of a Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo and another binding decision of a 14 OA 787/2021 & batch Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy were not placed for consideration before the Bench.which decided the case of K.Meghachandra;
ii. Even assuming that the case of K. Meghachandra was correctly decided, paragraph 39 of the decision shows that the decision in the case of N.R. Parmar has been prospectively overruled by observing that the decision will not affect the inter-se-seniority already fixed on the basis of the case of N.R. Parmar and the same was protected. It is also held that the decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant Rules from the date of vacancy / the date of advertisement. In this case, as on the date when the case of N.R. Parmar¹ was decided, there was no rule which required that the inter- seseniority of direct recruits and promotees to the post of Income Tax Inspectors should be fixed from the date on which a person is born in the cadre. In the facts of the case, the seniority list was correctly published on 7th September 2016 in terms of the decision in the case of N.R. Parmar¹ by interspacing those direct recruits who were eligible in the recruitment year 2009-10 and were appointed against the vacancies of the said year with 53 promotees who were promoted vide DPC dated 29th June 2009. The seniority list was later on modified on 13th February 2018 without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected direct recruits.
34. At this stage, we may note here the factual aspects stated in the affidavit dated 12th October 2022 filed by Shri Anurag Chandra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in the Office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat. The affidavit refers to the interim order dated 13th July 2018 in the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16161 of 2018, by which status quo as of that date with respect to the posts held, was ordered to be maintained. The affidavit notes that as a result of the interim order, the promotion to the cadre of Income Tax Officers from the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors could not take place. As a result, 33.33% of posts in the cadre of Income Tax Officers are vacant as the same cannot be filled in. As noted earlier, the decision in the case of K.Meghachandra applies prospectively i.e. from 19th November 2019. Prima facie, the seniority fixed based on the decision in the case of N.R. Parmar' has to be given effect. Therefore,. while we are recommending a reference to a larger Bench, interim relief will have to be vacated and seniority will have to be fixed on the basis of the impugned judgment, subject to the final outcome of the appeal or the decision of the larger Bench, as the case may be." In para 35, the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order as under: "35. Hence, we pass the following order:
i. We are of the considered view that the following questions need to be decided by a larger Bench of five Hon'ble Judges:
a. Whether the decision in the case of K. Meghachandra² can be said to be a binding precedent in the light of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Mervyn Coutindo and the law laid down by a Coordinate Bench in the case of M. Subba Reddy?
15 OA 787/2021 & batch b.:In absence of specific statutory rules to the contrary, when the 'rotation of quota' rule is applicable, whether the seniority of direct recruits who were recruited in the recruitment process which commenced in the relevant recruitment year but ended thereafter, can be fixed by following 'rotation of quota' by interspacing them with the direct recruits of the same recruitment year who were promoted earlier during the same year?
ii. We direct the Registry to place this petition before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
iii. The interim relief granted on 13th July 2018 stands vacated. Effect shall be given to the impugned judgment subject to the final outcome of this appeal or reference, as the case may be. We also clarify that the seniority. of.. promotees and direct recruits who may be appointed hereafter will be subject to the final outcome of the decision of this appeal or the decision in reference, as the case may be. Accordingly, concerned persons shall be informed in writing by the Income Tax Department."
13. In the light of the aforesaid order, the matter is now seized of by the Hon'ble Apex Court. By virtue of vacating the interim order granted on 13.07.2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to give effect to the impugned judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat subject to the final outcome of the said appeal or reference, as the case may be. It has been further clarified that the seniority of promotees and direct recruits who may be appointed thereafter will be subject to the final outcome of the decision of the said appeal or the decision in reference, as the case may be. Accordingly, concerned persons are directed to be informed in writing by the Income Tax department.
14. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the issue involved herein is identical and relates to the Income Tax department. In the light of the order of Hariharan³, without any hesitation it can be held that the entire exercise now done by the department based on the OM dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure-A6) is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra Singh². The draft seniority list impugned also specifies the same. That being the position, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that the draft seniority list has been issued to set right the mistake done applying N.R. Parmar¹ retrospectively from 1986 to 2012, deserves to be negated. The basis being K. Meghachandra Singh², the Hon'ble Apex Court order in Hariharan³ shall apply. The interim orders were passed by this Bench on 25.05.2022 and 07.06.2022 respectively directing the respondents not to recast the seniority list dated 28.07.2015 for the applicants, till the next date of hearing and the said interim orders were continued from time to time and is in operation as on date.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, OM dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure-A1) issued by the Respondent No. 2 and OM dated 26.10.2021 and 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A2 and A3 respectively) issued by the Respondent No. 3 based on K. Meghachandra Singh² are set aside directing the respondents not to disturb the eniority list dated 28.07.2015 subject to the final outcome of the appeal or reference in Hariharan³.
16. At this juncture, learned counsel Shri Adithya Chakragiri appearing for the 16 OA 787/2021 & batch private respondents No. 4 to 16 in OA No. 184/2022, inviting our attention to the Writ Petition No. 43898/2016 and connected matters submitted that the said Writ Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 980/2015 and connected matters whereby the seniority list dated 28.07.2015 has been upheld. In view of the said pending Writ Petitions, we make it clear that these Original Applications stand disposed of as aforesaid, subject to the result of the Writ Petition No. 43898/2016 and connected matters pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the final outcome of appeal or reference in Hariharan³ pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
17. Original Applications stand disposed of in terms of above. No order as to costs. "
11. On perusal, it is clear that the issue involved in the present OAs is similar and squarely covered by the abovesaid order dt. 17.01.2023 of the Bangalore Bench in OA No. 184/2022 and it is appropriate to pass a similar order in these OAs.
12. In view of the above circumstances and taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case, we deem it fit to direct the respondents not to disturb the revised seniority list dt. 09.12.2015 subject to the final outcome of the appeal or reference in the case of Hariharan & ors (supra) which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. Accordingly, the OAs are disposed of subject to the final outcome of appeal or reference in the case of Hariharan & ors (supra) pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. No order as to costs.
(T.Jacob) (Manjula Das)
Member(A) Member(J)
22.02.2023
SKSI