Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mukhtiar Singh vs M/O Law And Justice And Company Affairs on 18 December, 2025
1 O.A No. 4559/2015
Item 36 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 4559/2015
Reserved on : 09.12.2025
Pronounced on : 18.12.2025
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Mukhtiar Singh
(PROOF READER GROUP-(C)
S/O: Shri Narain Singh,
R/O: Q No. 102 Type-2 Lancer's Road,
Timarpur, Delhi-110054 ....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Govt. of India, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Legislative Department, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The deputy secretary (Adma.LD-1),
Govt. of India, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Legislative Department, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Secretary, Govt. of India,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions.
Department of Personnel & Training,
New Delhi-110001.
4. Sh. Rajbir Singh
[Respondent no. 4 to be served through the respondent no.2]
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Rajesh Katyal)
Digitally signed by
MAYA
MAYA
BAHADUR
BAHADUR
SINGH TARAGI
SINGH TARAGI
2 O.A No. 4559/2015
Item 36 (C-3)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
This is the fourth round of litigation. The instant OA has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dt. 14.07.2015 (AnnexureA/1), Promotion order dt.20.04.2015 (Annexure.A/2), Order dt.06/11/2015 (Annexure.A/3), and Order dt. 17/11/2015 (Annexure.A/4), and allow the OA in favour of the applicant and against the respondents with heavy cost.
(b) Direct the respondent no.1 & 2 to antedate the date of promotion in the grade of Proof Reader over and above his juniors [private respondents] with all consequential benefits, on the basis of revised seniority position and from the date his immediate junior as find mentioned in the revised seniority list, has been promoted as Proof Reader.
(c) Direct the respondent no.1 & 2 to consequently, further consider the applicant for promotion in the grade of Assistant (Printing) as per Rules and in terms of DOP&T O.M. dt.27.03.2001, within a time bound period as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper.
(d) Direct the respondent no.1 & 2 to pay arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum.
(e) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem Lt and proper in the interest of justice."
2. The factual background of the case as per the counsel of the applicant is that on 18.111988 the applicant was appointed as LDC in the Border Roads Organisation (BRO). On 01.12.2000 he was granted 1st ACP (the date he completed 12 years of regular service). Meanwhile, vide advertisement dated 08-14.09.2007 published by the Legislative Department for one post of Copyholder on deputation Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 3 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) basis, the applicant applied for the same through proper channel. Upon his selection in the Legislative Department, he went on deputation there and was absorbed also vide order dated 01.04.2008. Subsequently, vide representations dated 05.09.2011, 21.11.2011 and 12.01.2012 the applicant sought fixation of seniority but to no avail. Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 1187/2012 seeking disposal of his aforesaid pending representations. Based on the undertaking given by the respondents the OA was decided in applicant's favour on 09.07.2012 wherein three months time was given to the respondents to decide the pending representations of the applicant. However, the applicant had to file Execution Application MA No. 3267/2012 in that OA. After issuance of notice on the MA the respondents rejected the representations of the applicant vide order dated 12.12.2012. Thereafter the applicant filed another OA No. 316/2013 wherein he challenged the rejection order dated 12.12.2012 as well as the seniority list of Copy Holders as on 01.04.2012 (which he sought through RTI). The said impugned order dated 12.12.2012 as well as the seniority list was however quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.10.2014 with a direction to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to revise the seniority of the applicant by fixing the applicant's position over and above Private respondents in terms of the judgment in S.I. Roop Lal and others case by Hon'ble Apex Court and DoPT OM dated 27.03.2001. Pursuant to which, his seniority was revised vide Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 4 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) order dated 06.01.2015 however, he was deprived of the promotion and consequential benefits thereto. Although upon receipt of the notice in the Contempt Petition No. 107/2015 in OA 316/2013 the applicant was promoted to the post of Proof Reader vide order dated 20.04.2015; however, he was not promoted from back date from when his juniors were promoted as such. The said CP was disposed of on 26.05.2015 with liberty to pursue the matter further with the respondents in accordance with the rules. Pursuant to the same, the applicant preferred a detailed representation dated 29.05.2015 seeking to antedate his promotion at par with his juniors. However, his representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 14.07.2015. Thereafter, he filed another OA No. 3263/2015 for quashing of the promotion order dated 20.04.2015 as well as the rejection order dated 14.07.2015. Following directions were given while deciding that OA on 02.09.2015 :-
"Learned counsel for applicant submitted that while considering the applicant for further promotion to the post of Proof Reader, respondents should abide by the provisions contained in paragraph 3-4.2 of the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training in terms of Office Memorandum F.No.2011/1/2000-Estt. (D) dated 27.3.2001. Said paragraph reads thus:-
'3.4.2 The fixation of seniority of an absorbee in accordance with the above principle will not, however, affect any regular promotions to the next higher grade made prior to the date of such absorption. In other words, it will be operative only in filling up of vacancies in higher grade taking place after such absorption."
2. Heard. Issue notice to the respondents. Dr. Choudhary Shamsuddin Khan, learned senior panel counsel for Union of Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 5 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) India, who is present in the Court, is directed to accept notice.
3. Once there are guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (ibid) regarding fixation of seniority and promotion of absorbees, the respondents are expected to abide by the same.
4. In the wake, Original Application is disposed of with direction to the respondents to regulate further promotion of the applicant with due regard to paragraph 3.4.2 of the guidelines (ibid). No costs."
In the wake of the above order the applicant again preferred detailed representation dated 28.09.2015 for implementation of the directions issued by the Tribunal along with which he submitted a copy of the judgment passed by the Tribunal in an identical case in OA No. 1651/2012 - Dr. Rani Gera vs. UOI) wherein seniority and promotion in terms of DoPT OM dated 27.03.2001 had been directed to be implemented as upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 3485/2010. However, the respondents failed to obey the orders passed and vide order dated 06.11.2015 they denied promotion to the applicant thereby contravening the DoPT OM dated 27.03.2001. He again preferred another representation dated 18.11.2015 seeking implementation of the directions passed in the OA No. 3263/2015 and also sought clarification about the wrong date of permanent absorption shown in the impugned order dated 06.11.2015. Thereafter, another order was issued by the respondents on 17.11.2015 along with the seniority list for the post of Proof Reader against which the applicant represented on 19.11.2015 requesting for placing him in correct position particularly at Sl. No. 1 before constitution of DPC for Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 6 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) promotion to the next post i.e., Assistant (Printing). Aggrieved by the non disposal of that representation the applicant decided to approach this Tribunal fourth time by way of the present OA.
3. The grounds on which the applicant based his arguments are as under :-
"1. Action of the respondents in denying consequential benefits viz. promotion etc. in the higher grade, consequent upon revised seniority position (whereby the applicant has been placed over and above the private respondents), by way of impugned order dt. 14/07/2015, is illegal being in conflict with DOPT OM dt.27/03/2001.
2. Action of the respondents in denying consequential benefits viz. promotion etc. in the higher grade, consequent upon revised seniority position, is contrary to their own order/action, as find mention in the impugned order dt. 14/07/2015 itself, which reads as; "PROMOTION; Note-2:
Where juniors who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service, or two years, whichever is less for promotion to the next grade alongwith their juniors who have already completed such qualifying or eligibility service."
In view of above it is submitted that since the respondents have already revised the seniority position in terms of DOPT OM 1.27/03/2001, pursuant to Direction by this Hon'ble Court, they are obliged to grant consequential benefits thereto, viz promotion in the higher grade, as per above guidelines, as considering his service in the parent department in the equivalent grade w.e.f.18/11/1988, the applicant fulfils the criteria for promotion. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for promotion to the higher grade i.e. Proof Reader from the date his immediate junior has been promoted.
3. The applicant was in the equivalent grade w.e.f.18.11.1988, hence, he should also be considered for further promotions consequent upon revised seniority as per rules.
Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 7 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3)
4. The respondents are obliged to work upon / implement their Order dt.06/01/2015 in terms of DOP&T О.М. dt.27.03.2001, warranting consequential benefits of promotion in higher grades.
5. The impugned actions of the respondents are contrary and arbitrary to their own order dt.06/01/2015 in issuing fresh order dt.06/11/2015 & 17/11/2015.
6. The case of the applicant is fully covered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dt.14.12.1999 in the case of Shri S.I. Rooplal and Others Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi, JT 1999(9) SC 597.
7. The impugned actions of the respondents are contrary and arbitrary to DOPT OM dt.23rd October, 1989 along with Note dt.14th July, 2011 and Answers/clarification No.18 under DOPT File No.20011/1/2008-Estt.(D), dt.11/11/2010 [ANNEXURE.A/17(Colly.)]."
4. During arguments counsel for the applicant handed across the Bar a copy of the Full Bench decision of this Tribunal in Dr. Snehal Bhave vs. UOI & Ors. - OA No. 1436/2007 and batch, wherein the it has been held as under :-
"15. The facts of Prabha Devi (cited supra) reveal that for Grade-1 post in the Central Secretariat Service, 8 years approved service as Section Officer had been prescribed as minimum incumbency. Certain officers had been appointed by direct recruitment as Section Officers and they were adjudged as seniors to the promotees in consonance with the quota with the quota and rota rule. But such seniors had been overlooked for promotion. Examining the issue in detail, the Supreme Court opined that direct recruits, who were senior to promotees, were not entitled to be considered for promotion to a higher post as they did not fulfil the eligibility conditions specified in the rules framed by the rule making authority, In Paragraph 15 of the judgment, it had been held that the rule making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility conditions for promotion to a higher post. Court observed that when such an eligibility condition has been laid down by a service rule, it cannot be conceived that a direct recruit, who is senior to the promotees, is not required to comply with the eligibility condition: Nor he is entitled to be considered for promotion Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 8 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) to the higher post merely on the basis of seniority. The gist of the decision is that eligibility rules requires to be given due credit, seniority alone may not always deliver goods."
5. Per contra, the counsel of the respondents opposed the OA as well as the arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicant. He stated that the Memorandum dated 06.11.2015 disposing of the representation of the applicant dated 28.09.2015 was self explanatory and that the applicant was to be considered for promotion along with his juniors only after four years regular service in the grade of Copy Holder. With regard to the contention of the applicant about placing him at Sl. No. 1 the respondents submitted that the applicant was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the feeder grade i.e., Copy holder. However in the seniority list of Proof Reader one Sh. Rajbir Singh was placed at Sl. No. 1 as he was promoted w.e.f. 07.12.2009 and at that point of time the applicant was not eligible for promotion as per the provisions of the Recruitment Rules. Rather the applicant was promoted w.e.f. 20.04.2015 as Proof Reader and thus was placed at Sl. No. 2. The counsel added that the eligibility of the applicant for promotion to next higher post was to be counted from the date of his absorption in the Legislative Department as has been derived from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in R. Prabha Devi & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. - [1988] 7 ATC 63 upon which he had relied. The extracts of which are as under :-
"15. The rule-making authority is competent to frame rules laying down eligibility condition for promotion to a higher Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 9 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) post. When such an eligibility condition has been laid down by service rules, it cannot be said that a direct recruit who is senior to the promotees is not required to comply with the eligibility condition and he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post merely on the basis of his seniority. The amended rule in question has specified a period of eight years' approved service in the grade of Section officer as a condition of eligibility for being considered for promotion to Grade I post of C.S.S. This rule is equally applicable to both the direct recruit Section officers as well as the promotee Section officers. The submission that a senior Section officer has a right to be considered for promotion to Grade I post when his juniors who have fulfilled the eligibility condition are being considered for promotion to the higher post, Grade 1, is wholly unsustainable. The prescribing of an eligibility condition for entitlement for consideration for promotion is within the competence of the rule-making authority. This eligibility condition has to be fulfilled by the Section officers including senior direct recruits in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion. When qualifications for appointment to a post in a particular cadre are prescribed, the same have to be satisfied before a person can be considered for appointment. Seniority in a particular cadre does not entitle a public servant for promotion to a higher post unless he fulfils the eligibility condition prescribed by the relevant rules. A person must be eligible for promotion having regard to the qualifications prescribed for the post before he can be considered for promotion. Seniority will be relevant only amongst persons eligible. Seniority cannot be substituted for eligibility nor it can over-ride it in the matter of promotion to the next higher post. The rule in question which prescribes an uniform period of qualified service cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution."
Further, the counsel drew our attention to para 4.4 of his parawise reply which shows that the applicant has concealed various material facts from the Tribunal. The said para reads as under :-
"4.4 In reply to para 4.4 of the OA, it is submitted that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of Copy Holder in Legislative Department with effect from 26.03.2008 on absorption basis. Later on, the Applicant made an application on 20.10.2008 to the Respondent - Legislative Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 10 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) Department requesting to revert him to his parent department due to his personal problems and the financial loss arisen due to his fixation of pay on the basis of 6th CPC pay scales. A copy of application dated 20.10.2008 is annexed as Annexure R.III. Considering the aforesaid application, the mode of appointment was changed from "on absorption basis" to "on deputation/absorption basis" vide Office Order No. 79/2008 dated 4.12.2008. A copy of the said Order dated 4.12.2008 is annexed as Annexure-R.IV. Applicant's parent department i.e. Border Roads Organisation ('BRO' in short) was also informed regarding change in the mode of appointment. On the basis of this change, Applicant's parent department vide its letter dated 27.06.2009, recalled and posted him to "1409 SPL (P) Vartak". A copy of letter dated 27.06.2009 is annexed as Annexure - R.V. On receipt of the aforesaid posting order, Applicant changed his mind and requested the Legislative Department again vide letter dated 02.07.2009 to cancel his earlier request dated 20.10.2008 for reversion to his parent department. Respondents accepted his request and vide Order No.57/2009 dated 28.07.2009 appointed him as Copy Holder on permanent absorption basis with effect from 28.07.2009. A copy of the said Order dated 28.07.2009 is annexed as Annexure R.VI. His parent department (BRO) vide letters dated 18.08.2009, 12.11.2009 and 12.02.2010 objected to his permanent absorption. Respondents issued Order dated 08.03.2010 in supersession of earlier Order dated 28.07.2009 relieving the Applicant from his duties with effect from 15.03.2010 with direction to report to his parent cadre immediately. This Order was challenged by the Applicant vide OA. No 822/2010 before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order dated 01.09.2010 quashed Order dated 08:03:2010 with liberty to the Respondents to take appropriate action in the matter after giving him show cause notice and after considering his reply. Respondents implemented the Orders of Hon'ble Tribunal and matter was not persuaded further as per liberty given by Hon'ble Tribunal. Thus Order No. 57/2009 dated 28.07.2009 remains in existence vide which Applicant has been appointed to the post of Copy Holder on permanent absorption basis in the Legislative Department with effect from 28.07.2009. All other benefits including seniority and promotion based on his revised seniority and provisions of Recruitment Rules have since been provided to the Applicant."Digitally signed by
MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 11 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) The counsel highlighted the recruitment rules for the post of Proof Reader which provides for (i) 50% by promotion failing which by deputation, failing both by direct recruitment & (ii) 50% by deputation or absorption failing which by direct recruitment. For more clarity the eligibility conditions are quoted below :-
"Note 1: Eligibility service of eight years' regular service shall continue to be the same for persons holding the feeder posts on regular basis on the date of Publication of these rules.
Note 2: Where juniors who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service, or two years, whichever is less for promotion to the next grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying or eligibility service.
Note 3: For the purpose of computing minimum qualifying service for promotion, the service rendered on a regular basis by an officer prior to the 1st January, 2006 or the date from which the revised pay structure based on the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations has been extended, shall be deemed to be service rendered in the corresponding pay or pay scale extended based on the recommendations of the said Pay Commission."
The counsel further clarified in para 4.12 as under :-
"In terms of Recruitment Rules as stated above, Applicant was eligible for consideration along with his juniors for promotion after putting at least half of eligibility service or two years short of eligibility service, whichever is less. Eligibility service is 8 years for present incumbents and half of such service will be 4 years whereas period short by 2 years of such eligibility service will be (8-2) 6 years. Hence Applicant may be considered for promotion along with his junior only after 4 years regular service in the grade of 'Copy Holder ie only 27.07.2013. It is submitted that none of the officials in the grade of 'Copy Holder junior to the Applicant has been considered for regular promotion in the Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 12 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) grade of Proof Reader after 27.07.2013. Two official junior to the Applicant who were eligible as per Recruitment Rules were considered for promotion in April, 2015 and as per provisions contained in Recruitment Rules regarding consideration of seniors though they are short of eligibility service, Applicant was also considered. On his passing English Proof Reading Test, he has been promoted as Proof Reader with effect from 20.04.2015 vide Office Order No.A.32016/1/2003-Admn I(LD) dated 20 April, 2015 and has been placed above two other officials namely Shri Davender Singh and Shri Sushil Kumar who were junior to him in the grade of Copy Holder. A copy of Office Order dated 20.04.2015 is annexed as Annexure - R.VIII."
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, examined the relevant documents on record and perused the judgments and orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of Full Bench of CAT. It has been brought to our notice that the applicant has taken voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.07.2024 (AN) which is apparent from a certificate dated 22.07.2024 handed over by the counsel for the applicant during arguments. With regard to the rulings cited by the respondents we have gone through R. Prabha Devi's case (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while deciding the issue whether the minimum qualifying service in the feeder post a valid condition for promotion, (even if the Government servant has not completed that service) held that seniority alone does not confer a right to promotion. A Government servant becomes eligible for promotion only when he/she fulfills all criteria, including the minimum length of service prescribed in the feeder post. Therefore, a junior who completes the required service earlier can be considered for Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 13 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) promotion ahead of a senior who has not yet completed it. Thereby the Apex Court declared that the minimum qualifying service is a valid and mandatory condition for promotion. The Court emphasized that service rules may prescribe minimum years of service in a post before a person can be considered for promotion. Such a requirement does not violate equality of opportunity in matters of public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It further emphasized that even if a senior has higher total service or earlier appointment, he/she cannot claim seniority-based promotion without meeting service conditions. The reasoning given for such emphasis was that promotion is a combination of seniority, eligibility and suitability, not seniority alone. A senior who has not completed qualifying service cannot claim discrimination if a junior is considered as adequate experience is also required for getting next promotion. We have also perused the Full Bench Judgment of this Tribunal dated 22.04.2009 cited by the applicant in Dr. Snehal Bhave's case - OA No. 1436/2007 & batch (supra) wherein the Full Bench following the reasoning in SI Roop Lal vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi, held that deputationists who are absorbed into a service are to be given seniority by fully taking into account the equivalent service they rendered in their parent department. The Bench acknowledged that giving such seniority could adversely impact the career prospects of existing (regular) incumbents.
Digitally signed by
MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 14 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3)
7. In view of the above, though the Full Bench allowed deputationists to be included for promotion to the next higher post, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Prabha Devi has denied the same and pressed that promotion is a combination of seniority, eligibility and suitability; not seniority alone. We therefore cannot deviate from the ratio given by the Hon'ble Apex Court which has been discussed in detail above. Moreover, as the applicant has already retired, the recent ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Govt. of West Bengal vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi-2024 INSC 906 dated 27.11.2024 also does no support the case of the applicant. The judgment disallows promotion and consequential benefits thereto after retirement when the Government servant has not at all worked on the promoted post. For better understanding paras 20 and 21 of the said judgment are quoted below:-
"20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54[1] of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.
21. While we recognize respondent No.1's right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion Digitally signed by MAYA MAYA BAHADUR BAHADUR SINGH TARAGI SINGH TARAGI 15 O.A No. 4559/2015 Item 36 (C-3) was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity."
8. In the light of the above, the OA is dismissed on merits in terms of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Amal Satpathi as well as the ratio laid down in R. Prabha Devi's case.
Pending M.A(s) if any also stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/
Digitally signed by
MAYA
MAYA
BAHADUR
BAHADUR
SINGH TARAGI
SINGH TARAGI