Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Pradeepan C vs M/O Labour on 13 May, 2026
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00631/2016
Wednesday this the 13th day of May 2026
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Pradeepan.C.,
SSA, O/o.EPFO,
Sub Regional Office,
Kaloor, Kochi - 682 017.
2. M.B.Aravindakshan Pillai,
SSA, O/o.EPFO,
Sub Regional Office,
Kaloor, Kochi - 682 017.
3. K.S.Venugopal,
SSA, O/o.EPFO,
Sub Regional Office,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004.
4. Lizy Wilson,
SSA, O/o.EPFO,
Sub Regional Office,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004. ...Applicants
(By Advocates Mr.Dipu.R, Mr.K.S.Baiju, Mr.Sanal.P.Raj
& Mrs.P.A.Priya)
versus
1. Union of India
by and through its Secretary,
Ministry of Labour, New Delhi - 110 001.
A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30'
-2-
2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
Central Provident Fund Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Bhikkaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi - 110 066.
3. The Chairman,
Central Provident Fund Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Bhikkaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi - 110 066.
4. The Chairman,
The Internal Grievance Handling Committee,
Central Provident Fund Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Bhikkaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi - 110 066.
5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1,
Kerala Region, O/o.EPFO, Regional Office,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004.
6. The Sub Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
O/o.EPFO, Sub Regional Office,
Kaloor, Kochi - 682 017. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.Brijesh.A.S, ACGSC [R-1]
& Mrs.C.Deepa Devi [R2-6])
This application having been heard on 30 th March, 2026 the
Tribunal on 13th May, 2026 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The factual matrix of the case are as under - the applicants are working as Social Security Assistants (SSA) under the 2 nd respondent, attached to the offices of the 5 th and 6th respondents. The 1st and 3rd A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -3- applicants initially entered service as LDCs on 01.06.1993 and 25.05.1993 respectively in the Ministry of Labour, Urban Development, New Delhi and subsequently joined the 2 nd respondent's office at Thiruvananthapuram in 1995 and 1994 respectively. The 2 nd applicant entered service as LDC on 31.05.1996, while the 4 th applicant was appointed as LDC on 31.03.1995 on compassionate grounds.
2. At the time of their entry into service, the next promotional post was UDC with promotions governed by a 50:50 ratio of seniority and departmental examination. However, no examinations were conducted between 1997 and 2004 for filling UDC posts under the examination quota, adversely affecting the applicants' promotional prospects and seniority. With effect from 03.01.2004, new Recruitment Rules were introduced, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-1, abolishing the LDC cadre and redesignating UDC as SSA with enhanced qualifications including a computer skill test. Under the new rules, SSA became an entry-level post by merging the LDC and UDC posts with recruitment through 85% direct recruitment by open competitive examination failing which by deputation and 15% promotion by departmental qualifying examination/skill test. Promotion from LDC required five years of service and passing a computer skill test.
A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -4-
3. The applicants contend that had the examination quota vacancies been filled in time, they would have been promoted as UDCs and covered under the initial constitution clause for absorption as SSA. While UDCs (both regular and ad hoc) were exempted from the computer skill test and automatically absorbed as SSA, similar benefits were extended only to certain categories of LDCs (physically handicapped and those above 45 years), copies of which are produced as Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3. The applicants, despite having the requisite service, were denied such exemption. Further, by communication dated 03.12.2012, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A-4, the respondents insisted on strict compliance with the computer skill test requirement for LDCs seeking promotion to SSA, thereby placing the applicants at a disadvantage.
4. The 1st and 2nd applicants appeared for the Computer Skill Test twice, on 28.09.2005 and 22.07.2006, but were unsuccessful. Subsequently, the 1st and 3rd applicants cleared the Computer Skill Test; however, they were not promoted as SSA on that basis. Instead, their promotion was granted only upon attaining the age of 45 years, in terms of Annexure A-3 circular. The promotion order of the 1 st applicant is produced as Annexure A-5, and similarly, the other applicants were also A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -5- issued promotion orders to the post of SSA. In the meantime, the respondents published the final seniority list of SSAs for the period from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2011, comprising Sl.Nos.501A to 618. This is produced as Annexure A-6, wherein the 4 th applicant is placed at Sl.No.533 and the 2nd applicant at Sl.No.617. Thereafter, a subsequent seniority list covering the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2013, comprising Sl.Nos.619 to 622, was also published. This is produced as Annexure A-7 wherein the 1st applicant is placed at Sl.No.620. Thereafter the respondents published the final seniority of SSA promoted/appointed upto 31.03.2015 comprising Sl.Nos.1 to 639. This is produced as Annexure A-8 wherein the 1 st applicant is placed at Sl.No.620, the 2nd applicant is placed at Sl.No.617, the 3 rd applicant is placed at Sl.No.490 and the 4 th applicant is placed at Sl.No.535 respectively. It is seen from Annexure A-8 that the direct recruit SSAs are placed enblock much above the seniority of the applicants without considering their long services and not following the quota rota rules. It is argued that had the respondents conducted the examination for departmental promotion of then LDCs before the issuance of Annexure A-1, the applicants would have been placed much above others in Annexure A-8. Further, it is stated that earlier in 2008, the 1 st and 2nd applicants along with another person had approached this Tribunal by A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -6- filing O.A.No.318/2008 for absorbing them as SSAs. However, the Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid O.A. The challenge to the aforesaid order of this Tribunal was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala too.
5. The applicants had filed several representations through proper channel to the respondents pointing out that they are placed much below their juniors in service, copies of the representations are produced as Annexure A-9, Annexure A-10, Annexure A-11 and Annexure A-12. It is stated that no action has been taken by the respondents on the said representations. It is contended by the applicants that this has caused lost of seniority in service which would affects their promotion and post retirement benefits. The reliefs sought in the O.A are as under -
1. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash Annexure A-8 seniority list of SSA by holding that was prepared in violation of the quota rota rule and in violation of Annexure A-1 R.R.
2. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to give due seniority to the applicants in the cadre of Social Security Assistants based on their length of service in the clerical cadre and other related facts and circumstances.
3. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 6 to consider and pass orders on applicants' Annexure A-9, Annexure A-10, Annexure A-11 and Annexure A-12 representations after hearing the applicants. A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -7-
4. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be further pleased to pass any other just and equitable order in favour of the applicants, under the given facts and circumstances of the case as deemed fit and proper.
6. They have produced Annexure A-13 order dated 23.08.2016 upgrading 16 SSAs to the post of Senior Social Security Assistants based on the seniority list which is already under challenge before this Tribunal and prayed for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A-13.
7. The respondents have submitted that the factual matrix relating to the appointments, as presented by the applicants, is substantially correct. They state that a new cadre of SSA in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 was introduced in the organisation with effect from 03.01.2004, pursuant to the notification of the Recruitment Rules in the Gazette of India dated 23.12.2003. Consequent upon the introduction of the said cadre, the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the same pay scale was declared a dying cadre. As per the Initial Constitution Clause of the SSA Recruitment Rules, all persons holding the post of LDC on a regular basis were to be considered for appointment to the post of SSA, subject to qualifying a computer skill test conducted by the appointing authority. Further, the Central Board of Trustees, EPF, in exercise of its powers under Rule 5 of the SSA Recruitment Rules, 2003, relaxed the A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -8- provisions contained in Column No. 11 under the head "Initial Constitution Clause" of the Schedule, and re-designated all officials holding the post of UDC as on the date of notification of the said Rules as SSAs. This has been produced as Annexure R-2(a). The Recruitment Rules further provide that 85% of the posts in the SSA cadre shall be filled through direct recruitment by open competitive examination and the remaining 15% through promotion based on a departmental qualifying examination/skill test.
8. It is submitted that the cadre strength of SSA was determined by merging the posts of LDC and UDC. In this process, 2592 posts of LDCs were merged into the newly created SSA cadre, as evidenced by letter dated 15.02.2005 produced as Annexure R-2(b). Consequently, all existing LDCs possessing matriculation qualification and having completed five years of regular service were given an opportunity to be considered for promotion as SSA, subject to qualifying the prescribed computer skill test with a minimum speed of 5000 key depressions per hour in data entry, as per circular dated 17.03.2005 produced as Annexure R-2(c). Further, as a one-time measure, the Executive Committee of the Central Board of Trustees, EPFO, granted relaxation enabling LDCs with less than five years of service, but possessing the A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -9- requisite educational qualification, to appear for the computer skill test for absorption as SSA. This is evidenced by circular dated 29.04.2005 produced as Annexure R-2(d). The sanctioned strength of SSA and LDC in the Kerala Region was subsequently intimated by the Head Office vide letter dated 27.02.2006 produced as Annexure R-2(e), following which the number of LDC posts was reduced to 36.
9. It is further submitted that all four applicants appeared in the departmental computer skill test conducted for promotion to the post of SSA on two occasions. The 3 rd applicant qualified in the second attempt, whereas the other applicants failed to qualify the prescribed skill test despite availing two opportunities. Aggrieved thereby, the 1 st and 2nd applicants approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing O.A.No.318/2008, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant them retrospective promotion to the post of SSA with all consequential benefits, while also challenging the relevant provisions of the SSA Recruitment Rules. This Tribunal vide order dated 23.11.2009 dismissed the O.A stating that -
"When the Recruitment Rules prescribes that pass in Computer Skill Test is necessary for conversion of an LDC to SSA, it has to be strictly adhered to. It is true that this condition was relaxed in certain categories by the Central Board. Computer literacy cannot be treated as equivalent to pass in the skill test. Other relaxation was granted to LDCs with regard to 5 years service A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -10- clause, and no relaxation in the condition of pass in skill test was granted. The applicants have no legal right to seek relaxation/exemption from pass in the skill test unless they come within the exemption classes. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot direct the respondents to relax rules."
10. The applicants preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court by filing O.P. (CAT) No.2353/2011 challenging the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court, vide judgment dated 26.09.2011, dismissed the said Original Petition, thereby upholding the order of the Tribunal. Copies of the order of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court are produced as Annexures R-2(f) and R-2(g) respectively. Subsequently, EPFO Headquarters, vide letter No. HRM- III/1(1)2004/SSA/Pt.II/22914 dated 04.01.2007, conveyed the approval of the Executive Committee of the Central Board of Trustees, EPFO, granting a one-time exemption from qualifying the Computer Skill Test to those employees who were holding the post of LDC on regular basis as on 03.01.2004, upon their attaining the age of 45 years, for the purpose of promotion to the post of SSA. This is produced as Annexure R-2(h). Further clarification was issued vide letter dated 17.06.2007 (Annexure R-2(i)), stating that the exemption was limited only to the Computer Skill Test. In terms of the above relaxation, the 2 nd applicant was promoted as SSA with effect from 10.03.2011. The 1 st applicant was A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -11- granted an additional opportunity to appear for the skill test in July 2011, but he failed to qualify. Subsequently, upon attaining the age of 45 years, he was promoted as SSA and assumed charge on 30.04.2012. Similarly, the 4th applicant was promoted as SSA on 24.10.2008 upon attaining the age of 45 years. The 3rd applicant, having qualified the Computer Skill Test conducted on 22.07.2006, was promoted as SSA and assumed charge on 31.08.2006.
11. As per the Recruitment Rules, 85% of the SSA cadre is to be filled by direct recruitment through open competitive examination and the remaining 15% by promotion. Accordingly, the organisation conducted recruitment examinations as and when vacancies arose and candidates who qualified both the written test and the computer skill test were appointed as SSAs on regular basis. Their seniority was fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Staff (Fixation of Seniority) Regulations, 1989. The applicants, who were promoted subsequently, were placed in the seniority list strictly in accordance with the said Regulations. Since they entered the SSA cadre after the direct recruits, they were placed below such direct recruits in the seniority list. Aggrieved by this, the applicants submitted representations seeking placement in the seniority list as if they had qualified the A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -12- Computer Skill Test in their first attempt, contending that they had joined service earlier as LDCs. The Headquarters, vide letter dated 13.12.2007 produced as Annexure R-2(j) clarified that the one-time relaxation granted to LDCs on attaining the age of 45 years would entitle them to be considered for promotion only with effect from 04.01.2007, i.e., the date of the order granting exemption, and not retrospectively. It was further clarified that promotion would take effect only from the actual date of assumption of charge as SSA and seniority would be reckoned from the date of regular promotion. Accordingly, the representations of the applicants were rejected as being contrary to the Recruitment Rules.
12. It is submitted that qualifying the Computer Skill Test is an essential condition prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of SSA. Since the applicants (except the 3 rd applicant) failed to satisfy this requirement within the prescribed opportunities, they continued as LDCs until they were promoted under the relaxation granted upon attaining the age of 45 years. It is further submitted that departmental examinations for promotion to the post of UDC were conducted in the years 1997 and 1999, wherein 32 and 25 officials respectively qualified. Thereafter, upon implementation of the post-based roster in 1998, most vacancies were earmarked for SC/ST categories and A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -13- consequently, no departmental examinations were conducted for the general category up to 2004 due to non-availability of vacancies. The introduction of the SSA cadre in 2004 was part of a broader initiative to modernize and computerize the functioning of EPFO. The minimum educational qualification prescribed for SSA is a degree with computer knowledge, whereas for LDC it was only SSLC. Nevertheless, all existing LDCs were given an opportunity to transition to the SSA cadre by qualifying the Computer Skill Test.
13. With regard to pay scales, the pre-revised scale of UDC and SSA was Rs.4000-100-6000, whereas that of LDC was Rs.3050-75-3950- 80-4590. Upon promotion as SSA, LDCs were entitled to pay fixation under FR 22(1)(a)(1). As per Annexure A-4, LDCs possessing matriculation qualification and five years of service, and who qualified the skill test, were eligible for promotion under the 15% departmental quota. The 3rd applicant was accordingly promoted after qualifying the skill test in his second attempt. The respondents specifically deny the contention that the 1st applicant had qualified the Computer Skill Test. The 3rd applicant alone qualified the test (in the second attempt) and was promoted vide Office Order No.239/2006 dated 31.08.2006. The 1 st applicant failed in all three attempts and was subsequently promoted only A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -14- upon attaining 45 years of age, based on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 27.04.2012, a copy of which is produced as Annexure R-2(k). His request for exemption, submitted vide letter dated 16.04.2012, is produced as Annexure R-2(l). The other applicants were similarly promoted upon attaining the age of 45 years.
14. It is reiterated that direct recruits were appointed on a regular basis and placed in the SSA seniority list accordingly. At the time of their appointment, the applicants were still working as LDCs. Hence, upon their later promotion, they were rightly placed below those already in the SSA cadre. The seniority list is finalized periodically in accordance with Regulation 5 of the EPF Staff (Fixation of Seniority) Regulations, 1989. Upon introduction of the SSA cadre, UDCs were placed en bloc, and LDCs promoted through skill test were also placed appropriately based on their inter se seniority. Direct recruits appointed through open competitive examination were placed en bloc under the direct recruitment quota. The applicants were assigned seniority strictly in accordance with the date of their regular promotion and assumption of charge as SSA. Their representations were rejected by the 5 th respondent vide letter dated 02.09.2016, as the request was contrary to the statutory Recruitment Rules and Seniority Regulations. It is therefore submitted A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -15- that Annexure A-9 seniority list is legal, valid, and sustainable in law. The applicants were afforded sufficient opportunities to qualify the Computer Skill Test but failed to do so (except the 3 rd applicant). Considering their past service, a one-time relaxation was granted to enable their promotion upon attaining 45 years of age. The claim of the applicants to assign them seniority in the SSA cadre retrospectively, based on their initial appointment as LDCs, without fulfilling the prescribed qualification and prior to actual promotion, is untenable, arbitrary, and in clear violation of the Recruitment Rules and the EPF Staff (Fixation of Seniority) Regulations, 1989.
15. In the rejoinder, the applicants contend that with effect from 03.01.2004, the cadres of LDC and UDC under the respondents were merged and re-designated as the cadre of SSA, and thereafter only a single unified seniority list of SSA existed. It is submitted that the 1 st and 3rd applicants were initially appointed through the Staff Selection Commission under the Sports Quota. The 2 nd applicant was promoted from Group 'D' to the post of LDC under the 30% quota, in terms of the then prevailing Recruitment Rules, on 08.07.1992, while the 4 th applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds. According to the applicants, the introduction of the new Recruitment Rules with effect A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -16- from 03.01.2004 resulted in the creation of the SSA cadre by merging the posts of LDC and UDC in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000, and the post of UDC was thereafter declared as a dying cadre.
16. The principal grievance of the applicants is that additional conditions, particularly the requirement of qualifying a Computer Skill Test, were imposed on LDCs for their induction into the SSA cadre, whereas all UDCs were automatically re-designated as SSAs without any such conditions. It is contended that due to the non-convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee at the relevant time, the applicants were deprived of the benefit of such re-designation. The applicants further submit that under the earlier Recruitment Rules, promotion from LDC to UDC was governed by a 50:50 quota between seniority and departmental examination. However, the introduction of the new Recruitment Rules imposed additional eligibility conditions for LDCs to enter the SSA cadre, which, according to them, is per se arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that the reliefs sought in O.A. No.318/2008 are distinct and have no bearing on the present proceedings. The applicants further assert that they were not granted the benefit of the exemptions contemplated under Annexures R-2(h) and R-2(i).
A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -17-
17. The applicants point out that, except for the 3 rd applicant, all of them were promoted to the SSA cadre only upon attaining the age of 45 years. They contend that without taking into account their long length of service as LDCs, they have been placed far below the directly recruited SSAs in the impugned seniority list. The applicants also challenge the vacancy position stated by the respondents, alleging that the same is incorrect and has been presented with ulterior motives. However, no substantive material has been placed on record to support this allegation. Further, the applicants dispute the respondents' contention regarding their failure to qualify the Computer Skill Test, but have not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim.
18. It is contended that the application of Regulation 5 of the EPF Staff (Fixation of Seniority) Regulations, 1989, alongside the new Recruitment Rules, results in an inconsistency, as two different sets of provisions are being applied to the same cadre. According to the applicants, once a new cadre has been created under fresh Recruitment Rules, all members of that cadre ought to be governed uniformly by the said Rules alone.
A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -18-
19. There are two main contentions over here. First is that the LDCs would have automatically be redesignated as SSA on the introduction of the new Recruitment Rules and any additional qualifications prescribed would not debar them from being included in the seniority list of the SSAs and that the seniority should be fixed under the rota quota system of the direct recruits of the respective batches. That is the fundamental issue over here. As per the terms of O.A.No.318/2008 it has been held that new Recruitment Rules are valid and correct and hence LDCs would not be automatically redesignated as SSA since for them it would be a promotion unlike of UDCs where it would be redesignation by virtue of identical pay scales. This being held, trying to get over the impediment caused by claiming the benefit of seniority saying that on the ground of rota quota system by length of service they should automatically be redesignated as SSAs and placing them in the seniority list prior to the date of their actual promotion into the SSA cadre does not appear to be tenable. In fact, it is an attempt to avoid the taint of res-judicata by approaching with the same issue which has become a consequential benefits when primary benefit had been denied. Second issue is the factual variance in the clearing of examination. When the applicants had made the claim of having passed the departmental examination which has been countered by the respondents, it would be essential for them to A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -19- provide factual evidence of having such a claim. No such evidence has been provided. Furthermore, to claim the benefit of rota quota the applicants should have to be in the same cadre as the direct recruits of that cadre. When the applicant have not qualified to be placed in the same cadre as that of the direct recruits and were actually qualified at a much later date, to claim the benefit of seniority on the basis of rota quota which applies to individuals in the same cadre is misplaced and unwarranted.
20. In the light of the above, the O.A fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 13th day of May, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30'
-20-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00631/2016
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the rules published in Gazette dated 03.01.2004.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the circular No.HRM.III/1(1)2004/SSA/Pt.III/1073 dated 05.04.2006.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the circular No.HRM.III/1(1)2004/SSA, Pt.III/4509 dated 25.04.2007.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the communication No.HRM.IV/1(1)/2009/SSA/Promotion dated 03.12.2012.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the office order No.85/2012 dated 30.04.2012.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the seniority list of SSA's promoted/appointed from 01.10.2007 to 31.03.2011.
7. Annexure A-7 - A copy of the seniority list of SSA's from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2013.
8. Annexure A-8 - A copy of the seniority list of SSA's promoted/appointed upto 31.03.2015.
9. Annexure A-9 - A copy of the representation dated 12.10.2015 submitted by the 1st applicant.
10. Annexure A-10 - A copy of the representation dated 12.10.2015 submitted by the 2nd applicant.
11. Annexure A-11 - A copy of the representation submitted by the 3 rd applicant.
12. Annexure A-12 - A copy of the representation submitted by the 4 th applicant.
13. Annexure A-13 - A copy of the office order No.97/2016 being No.KR/RO/TVM/Adm.1 (5)/Sr.SSA/2016 dated 23.08.2016.
A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30' -21-
14. Annexure A-14 - A copy of the communication being No.HRM- IV/60(1)/2013/SSA/Pt., dated Nil.
15. Annexure A-15 - A copy of the order with No.06/2017 dated 01.01.2017.
16. Annexure R-2(a) - A copy of the letter No.HRD/4(12)2002/SSA/RR/88807 dated 25.02.2004.
17. Annexure R-2(b) - A copy of the letter No.HRM/1()2004/SSA/ RR/82967 dated 15.02.2005.
18. Annexure R-2(c) - A copy of the circular No.HRD/I(3)2004/Const. of Sub Committee/101309 dated 17.03.2005.
19. Annexure R-2(d) - A copy of the circular No.KR/Adm.I(S)/2005 dated 29.04.1965.
20. Annexure R-2(e) - A copy of the letter No.HRM-III/1(1)2004/SSA Pt/78933 dated 27.02.2006.
21. Annexure R-2(f) - A copy of the order dated 26.09.2011 in OP(CAT) No.2353/2011.
22. Annexure R-2(g) - A copy of the judgment dated 23.11.2009.
23. Annexure R-2(h) - A copy of the letter dated 04.01.2007.
24. Annexure R-2(i) - A copy of the letter dated 17.08.2007.
25. Annexure R-2(j) - A copy of the letter issued by the Head Quarters.
26. Annexure R-2(k) - A copy of the proceedings of DPC dated 27.04.2012.
27. Annexure R-2(l) - A copy of the letter dated 16.04.2012.
_______________________________ A S Peethambaran 2026.05.13 15:52:42+05'30'