Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Mrs Sangita Sanjay Paturde vs Bsnl on 16 October, 2025
1
OA No.463/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH, CAMP AT NAGPUR.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.463/2022
Dated this Thursday the 16th day of October, 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Mrs. Sangita Sanjay Paturde,
Presently working as a SDE (Commercial) CSC
Main at P.G.M. BSNL Amravati,
R/at Eknathpuram, Behind Ambiance Show room,
Near Shankar Nagar, Amravati (Mah)- 444607.
Email: [email protected].
Mob: 9422855002. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Marathe)
VERSUS
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Through its Chief Managing Director,
Corporate Office, Personnel Branch, 4th Floor,
BSNL Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi 110 001.
2. The Chief General Manager (Telecom),
BSNL, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai - 01.
3. The General Manager Telecom
BSNL, Akola - 01.
4. The General Manager Telecom (Now P.G.M.T.)
BSNL, Sanchar Bhawan, Amravati - 01.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Amol Deshpande)
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra,
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh
Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA No.463/2022
Order Reserved on : 21st August, 2025.
Pronounced on: 16th October, 2025.
ORDER
Per: Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"8i) Quash and set aside impugned order dt.
15.02.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1, rejecting applicant's representations praying for grant of IDA scale upgradation from E2-E3 scale from 22.03.2013.
8.ii) hold and declare the impugned action of postponing applicants IDA grade E2-E3 scale upgradation by 2 years from 22.03.2013 to 19.04.2015 and subsequent IDA promotions belatedly is illegal.
8.iii) direct Respondent No. 1 to grant applicant IDA E2 - E3 promotion from 22.03.2013 and subsequent IDA promotion from E3- E4 grade from the date her colleague's/junior promoted and further grant all the consequential service benefits and arrears of pay with interest.
8.iv) Hold and declare the impugned order dt. 12.03.2015 issued by the respondent no.4, imposing penalty of CENSURE on the applicant is bad in law Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA No.463/2022 and patently illegal
8.v) And any other relief this Honourable Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice."
2. Facts in brief are that the applicant was appointed in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in the year 2004. As per BSNL Epp promotion policy, an individual executive will become due for first upgradation on completion of four years of service in the current scale (from E1 to E2). The next promotion becomes due after completion of five years of service in the new scale (E2 to E3).
A departmental enquiry was instituted on 29th December, 2010 and came to an end on 18th April, 2015 when a penalty of censure was awarded to the applicant. The applicant was due for promotion from E1 to E2 in the year 2008. The DPCs were held only in 2013, by which time the departmental proceedings had commenced, and therefore, the promotion from E1 to E2 was denied. On representation, the applicant was allowed upgradation w.e.f. 22nd March, 2008. The promotion from E2 to E3 grade due on 22nd Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA No.463/2022 March, 2013 was denied on the ground that a penalty of censure had been awarded to the applicant. She was considered in the DPC held in February, 2018, when her IDA promotion from E2 to E3 was granted w.e.f. 19th April, 2015 i.e., the date after the award of punishment.
2.2 It is the contention of the applicant that she should have been promoted w.e.f. 22nd March, 2013, the date on which she became due for IDA promotion. In this regard, the applicant has relied on the order of CAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Chhote Lal Meena Vs. Union of India & Anr. in TA No.52/2009 (CWP 1712/2008) decided on 06th May, 2011, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jaipur and the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is her contention that being identically situated, she is entitled to get her E2 to E3 promotion from the date she became due i.e., 22nd March, 2013 and not from 19th April, 2015 i.e., the date after the punishment.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA No.463/2022 2.3 It is contended that during the disciplinary proceedings, the Inquiry Officer had exonerated her of the charges and the then Disciplinary Authority had accepted the Inquiry Report. However, a second opinion was sought from the Vigilance Department and on the directions of the Maharashtra Circle Vigilance, Mumbai, the order was reviewed and penalty of censure was imposed on 18th April, 2015. It is contended that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of nature justice. It is also contended that the award of penalty should be the sole discretion of the Disciplinary Authority and imposition based on the advice of Vigilance vitiated the process. 2.4 On merits, it was submitted that in the case of Chhote Lal Meena (supra), an identically placed person, it was held that a penalty of censure should not come in the way to get IDA promotions, which were to be made on a seniority-cum merit basis.
3. The respondents, in their reply, have submitted that the applicant has not exhausted the remedy provided in Rule 45 of the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA No.463/2022 BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, i.e., appeal against the penalty and, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. It was submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were pending against the applicant on the due date and, therefore, she was not granted promotion; and since the penalty awarded was of censure, the applicant was allowed promotion from the date after the award of penalty. It was submitted that it would be incorrect to hold that censure is akin to a warning, as it is a minor penalty listed under Rule 33 of BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006. It was also submitted that withholding of promotion during the pendency of proceedings was in accordance with the DoPT OM dated 14th September, 1992 which prescribes the procedure to be followed in respect of Government servants against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending. Since the applicant was awarded a penalty, the promotion in IDA Pay Scale from E2 to E3 was given from prospective date i.e., 19th April, 2015. Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA No.463/2022 3.2 The respondents have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. And Anr. Vs. I.A. Qureshi, (1998) 9 SCC 261 dated 04th January, 1996 to state that censure is a penalty and that in such cases promotion can be considered only on a prospective basis.
3.3 As regards the contention of the applicant regarding obtaining advice of the Vigilance Department, the respondents submitted that it was in compliance with the Circular No.05/07/18 dated 10th July, 2018 of the CVC, which requires that in cases where Disciplinary Authority tentatively proposes to take any action which is at variance with the CVO's first-stage advice, it is required to be referred to the CVO for obtaining second stage advice.
4. Before we go into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to decide the MA filed for condonation of delay. The applicant, in her application for condonation of delay has submitted that the delay was caused due to the reason that the applicant was given assurances by the respondents' office that the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA No.463/2022 matter was under consideration and appropriate orders would be passed.
5. It was submitted that the first cause of action arose on 11th June, 2018 when her IDA upgradation was postponed on the basis of the punishment. The application should, therefore, have been filed on or before 11th June, 2019 and since her representation was pending, it should have been filed on or before 11th December, 2019. Accordingly, the delay in filing the application is of 390 days, which was also on account of the Covid-19 lockdown due to which regular working was hampered.
5.2 It was further submitted that the applicant's representation was finally decided on 15th February, 2021 and the OA having been filed on 13th January, 2022 should be considered within limitation, and that the condonation application has been filed by way of abundant caution.
5.3 It was argued that since the matter pertains to fixation of salary, it is a continuous cause of action and, therefore, in this Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA No.463/2022 view of the matter, there cannot be said to be any delay. The applicant also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in WP No.6285/2018 in the case of Anil Ramdas Pawar Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 04th March, 2020 to support her claim.
6. The respondents have submitted that the applicant has not exhausted all remedies as provided under Rule 45 of BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006.without resorting to statutory appeal provided under the said rule and, therefore, the application is not maintainable.
7. Having considered the submissions with regard to condonation, we are of the considered view that the same deserves to be allowed. This is in view of the fact that applicant's representation was rejected only in 2021. Even otherwise, the Covid-19 pandemic had hit by February- March, 2020, when regular functioning came to a standstill, and the Hon'ble Apex Court taking suo motu cognizance had extended the limitation. The Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA No.463/2022 total delay can be said to be of approximately two months, which in the interest of justice and applying a liberal construction, deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, delay is condoned. MA is allowed.
ON MERITS:-
8. We have gone through the facts of the case. The applicant in prayer clause 8(iv) challenges the award of penalty.
The applicant has made submissions on the award of penalty. However, it is seen that the applicant has not preferred an appeal as available under the BSNL (CDA) Rules, 2006. The penalty was awarded on 18th April, 2015. Time allowed to the applicant under the CCS (CCA) to appeal against the said award is 45 days. Not having preferred an appeal against the award, now it is not open to the applicant to challenge the same before the Tribunal. This prayer is not maintainable. As per Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, OA can be preferred only after exhausting all the remedies provided under the law. Since appeal has not been Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA No.463/2022 preferred as provided under the Rules, the OA in this respect is not maintainable. The prayer clause 8(iv) challenging the award of penalty is rejected.
9. The only issue remaining to be adjudicated is whether the applicant was to be allowed promotion from the date it became due or from the date the penalty had been served out.
10. In the case of the applicant, the penalty proceedings had already been instituted by the time she became due for promotion from E2 to E3. Since the proceedings were pending, the respondents did not consider her case when she became due.
However, promotion was granted with effect from the date on which the penalty of censure came to an end.
11. The applicant has argued that she is covered by the case of Chhote Lal Meena Vs. Union of India (supra) decided by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal and upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, and the SLP having been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also contended that based on this Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA No.463/2022 case, the applicant had been allowed her promotion from E1 to E2, though initially she had been denied this promotion also on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings. The respondents, however, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. I.A. Qureshi (supra).
12. We find that the contention of the applicant that her promotion from E1 to E2 was allowed based on the order of the CAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Chhote Lal Meena Vs. Union of India (supra), is not correct. She was served with the Charge Mem- orandum on 29th December, 2010, which was after the date on which she became eligible for promotion. The case of Chhote Lal Meena Vs. Union of India (supra) does not have any bearing in such a case.
13. We, further observe that the decision in the case of Chhote Lal Meena Vs. Union of India (supra) relied on the judgment in the case of Ram Khilari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, reported in Western Law Cases (Raj.) 2911(1)220 in which Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA No.463/2022 seniority-cum-merit was the criterion for promotion. In that case, it was held that a minor penalty had no merit. The IDA scheme mentioned in the order of Chhote Lal Meena Vs. Union of India (supra) lists out the upgradation criteria, which clearly states that;
".....10.c Upgradation criteria:
1. Review: The review for all Executives meeting the qualifying service conditions of sub para b-3 above will be done every year with reference to Review date i.e. on 1st October. On being found fit, the IDA scale upgradation will be effective from the due date.
2. The fitness for IDA pay scale upgradation to the next higher IDA scale of the eligible executives will be judged by prescribed Screening Committee on the basis of performance rating of ACRs, as per details given in sub para 3 below, subject to necessary disci- plinary/vigilance clearance and no punishment is current."
14. Therefore, suitability/fitment was a necessary condition for promotion under the Scheme for upgradation which included clearance from disciplinary/vigilance angle. This seems to have been overlooked in the order of Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA No.463/2022
15. It is further seen that the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan proceeded on the assumption that suitability was not open to be adjudged and, therefore, held that in such a case service of charge-sheet before or after the due date may not be a material distinction between three different persons, two of whom had been allowed the benefit of promotion by the department as the charge-sheet had been issued after the due date. In this view of the matter, it held that parity had to be allowed to the candidates and, therefore, held that the 3rd candidate (Chhote Lal Meena Vs. Union of India (supra)) was entitled to similar benefits. This could have been on the basis of the submission of the respondents' counsel in that case (i.e. counsel of Chhote Lal Meena) as recorded by the Hon'ble High Court in 2nd para on page 2 of their judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, observing that no ground for interference is made out. Therefore, no precedent has been set by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Both the CAT Jaipur Bench, as well as the Hon'ble High Court of Jaipur held in the facts of that case that suitability/fitment was not a Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA No.463/2022 requirement, whereas the scheme in the case at hand clearly required that the candidate should be found fit for promotion.
16. In the decision in the case of State of M.P. and Anr. Vs. I.A. Qureshi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that censure is a minor penalty. While doing so, it rejected the contention that censure amounted only to a warning. It further held that the employee concerned can be considered for promotion only on a prospective basis.
17. In view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hold that the applicant could not have been promoted during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the award of penalty of censure. The applicant could have been promoted only after serving out the penalty. Therefore, no fault can be found in the action of the respondents in promoting the applicant from the end of the currency of the penalty of censure i.e., the date after being awarded the penalty. The prayer of the applicant in 8(i) & 8(ii) i.e., promotion from E2 to E3 with effect Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA No.463/2022 from the date she became due and not the date when the penalty ended, cannot be allowed. Reliefs sought in 8(iii) are consequential and, therefore, also stand rejected.
18. The Original Application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.
(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar)
Member (A) Member (J)
dm.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.21 14:49:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0