Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
P.K. Sarin vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA No.309/2011 Reserved on 06.01.2012 Pronounced on 20.01.2012 NEW DELHI THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2012 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) P.K. Sarin 492/KG-1, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. Applicant (Applicant in person) VERSUS 1. UNION OF INDIA Through the Secretary Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-1 2. Director General of Works, Central Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110011 3. Union Public Service Commission, Through its Chairman Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri H.K. Gangwani) ORDER DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A):
Shri P.K. Sarin, a retired Executive Engineer in the Building Project Division of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the applicant herein, is aggrieved by the letter dated 22.07.2010 wherein the applicants seven representations on the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period 21.10.1984 to 31.03.1991 have been considered and rejected. He is also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in reversing the Efficiency Bar (EB) sanctioned to him earlier. It is further the claim of the applicant that his representation dated 04.07.2010 along with his application should be considered by the respondents and the applicant promoted to the next higher post.
2. Brief facts of the case would disclose that applicant joined the CPWD as Junior Engineer on 02.08.1976, promoted as Assistant Engineer in 1984 and was considered for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer (Civil) in the DPC for the year 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 conducted by Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in September-October, 1999. The recommendations of the DPC was kept under sealed cover as a criminal case against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) was pending before the Trial Court and he was under suspension w.e.f. 29.04.1991. By the orders of Special Judge dated 28.08.2002 he was acquitted and consequently his suspension was revoked on 27.01.2003. In compliance of the directions by this Tribunal in OA No.2401/2003 decided on 9.02.2004, the suspension period from 29.04.1991 to 27.01.2003 were treated as the period spent on duty for all intents and purposes with consequential benefits vide order dated 12.03.2004. Thereafter, the proceedings of the DPC under the sealed cover for the year 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were opened. It was noticed that the DPC had recorded that the Committee could not give their recommendations in the case of Shri P.K.Sarin against whom vigilance case is pending because his CRs was not available. In view of the above peculiar recording by the DPC, a review DPC was held in the UPSC to consider the applicants case for the said two years on 21.09.2004 where his ACRs for the period from 1984-1985 to 31.03.1991 were considered. The review DPC did not recommend his name for inclusion in panel for the vacancies of 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. The Competent Authority accepted the recommendations and the applicant was not promoted to the grade of Executive Engineer (C). Being aggrieved, he filed OA No.2665/2004 before the Tribunal praying (a) to quash the impugned order dated 21.10.2004 in which he was intimated about the above decision of the Competent Authority; and (b) to direct the respondents to grant him promotion by ignoring the adverse ACRs if any. It was noted by the Tribunal that in all those years the applicant had only two ACRs graded as Good and all other ACRs were only Average or Fair. It was further noted that he did not meet the benchmark i.e. Good for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The Tribunal held that the DPC was right in its decision by not recommending the applicant for promotion to the Executive Engineer (Civil) grade. It is seen that the Tribunal while dismissing the OA referred to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Nath Pandey Versus State of UP and others., [2000 (5) SLR 76] in its order dated 09.09.2005. The applicant challenged the said order before the Honble High Court of Delhi in WP (C ) No.802/2006 which was allowed on 25.02.2009 with the following directions:-
We direct the respondents to communicate the ACRs fo the aforesaid years to the petitioners within four weeks. The petitioner shall be entitled to make representation, which shall be made within four weeks thereafter. On making this representation, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent within two months thereafter. In case the entry/entries for the aforesaid years are upgraded, the petitioner shall be considered for promotion by the Review DPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner was even allowed to cross his efficiency bar in the year 1991 itself on the basis of the same ACRs and, thus, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2000 (5) SLR 76, as per which he would have become entitled for fresh consideration for promotion. It is made clear that while holding review DPC, this fact shall also be taken into consideration by the Review DPC. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of the Honble High Court, the respondents moved the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.3355/2010 which was dismissed on 12.03.2010. The Review Petition (Civil) No.1253/2010 moved in the said SLP, the Honble Supreme Court directed to place the matter for decision after the Larger Bench in Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C ) No.15770/2009 titled Union of India Versus Shri A.K. Goel & Others was to be decided. It has been stated in the pleadings that the said review petition is still pending before the Honble Supreme Court. In the meantime, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No.749/2009 in WP (C ) No.802/2006 in the Honble High Court of Delhi against non-implementation of its order dated 25.02.2009 wherein the respondents, in order to avoid contempt, allowed to communicate the ACRs for the period from 21.10.1984 to 31.03.1991 to the applicant. The applicant submitted his representations requesting for upgradation of his ACRs gradings, more specifically for the below benchmark ACRs. On receipt of the same, the Competent Authority could not get the comments of the Reporting and Reviewing authorities as they had already retired. However, the Competent Authority considered the applicants representations in detail and passed order rejecting applicants request on 22.07.2010, which has been impugned by the applicant in the present OA. In view of the above chequered career of the applicant and approaching various judicial fora in litigating the cases in the Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court, he has ultimately come to this Tribunal in the present OA with the following prayers:-
I. To quash the order dt. 22.7.2010 of the Respondent rejecting the representation.
To direct the respondents to reconsider Applicants representations dt. 4.7.2010 alongwith this application taking into account following and promote the applicant.
a. To treat Bench Mark of EB as good.
b. To treat Bench Mark good of ACRs considered, according to which the DPC found the Petitioner fit for crossing the efficiency bar the five years considered for that purpose should be treated meeting the Bench Mark of Good.
c. To treat Annual Confidential Report for the period when no work was given to petitioner meeting the minimum Bench mark of Good d. To treat the grading Satisfactory as minimum good in the absence of existence of grading by the name of Satisfactory under the service rules?
e. To treat the adverse grading remarks illegal, which are without prior advice, guidance, assistance, feedback and training.
f. To quash downgrading of ACRs by countersigning officer being without reason/justification, especially when no work gone to countersigning officer.
g. To treat the ACRs good (required benchmark for fit), which is not reported as unfit for promotion in the ACRs provided.
h. To declare ACR written after a period of three years as illegal and to ignore the same.
i. To fix time limit for compliance of order.
Award compensation to the applicant for mental Harassment by the respondents.
Cost for playing with the justice by respondents with unclean hands by forgoing, that there is no bench Mark for EB.
Order the costs of this petition and Issue any other further order(s) or direction as this Honble court deem fit and appropriate on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.
3. The applicant, who appeared in person, narrated the service setback he had gone through over the years and submitted that the respondents did not follow the order of the Honble High Court of Delhi in true letter and spirit. Highlighting the judgment of 25.02.2009 he would submit that the Honble High Court made it clear in its directions that the representations of the applicant should be considered and in case the entries with the aforesaid order were upgraded the petitioner should be considered for promotion by the review DPC. Applicant submits that his representation to the Competent Authority has not been dispassionately considered and without appreciating the work done by the applicant from the year 1984 to 1991, respondents have allowed the below benchmark grading to continue in his ACRs. His further submission is that by grading him as Fair in the ACRs, the Competent Authority/Reporting Officer has committed a mistake, entry like Fair does not figure in the ACR overall grading system. Hence, his plea is that such entries should be ignored. In the absence of any warning or guidance by the Reporting / Reviewing / Accepting Authorities during the said period, they are not expected to give below benchmark grading to the applicant. The applicant submitted that his Efficiency Bar was cleared in the year 1991 in the running pay scale after considering the very same ACRs and for promotion taking into account those ACRs, he is being denied promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer. He submits that he has suffered humiliation over last many years by not getting promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer and prays that the Tribunal should direct the respondents to upgrade his ACRs and reconsider his promotion through review DPC to the post of Executive Engineer. He also questioned the rationality of the action of the respondents reversing the EB benefits extended to him w.e.f. 1991 and that too after long period. During the final hearing, the applicant handed over copy of the following judgments in support of his grounds taken in the OA viz (i) Girija Shankar Misra Versus Union of India & Others [(1996) 34 ATC 43]; (ii) Lakshman Singh Versus Union of India & Others [1993(1) SLR 722]; (iii) Sukhdeo Versus Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati & Another [(1996) 5 SCC 103]; (iv) Vijay Kumar Versus State of Haryana [AIR 1993 SC 622]; and (v) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Versus Jagannath [AIR 1994 SC 853]. His submission is that the order passed by the respondents should be quashed with direction to upgrade the overall grading in his ACR above the benchmark i..e Good and direct them to promote him to the next higher grade w.e.f. the date his immediate junior was promoted.
4. Shri H.K. Gangwani, learned counsel for the respondents would referred to the reply affidavit dated 04.08.2010 and the additional affidavit dated 22.12.2011 to elaborate the stand of the respondents. He submit that in compliance of the directions of the Honble High Court, the Competent Authority has gone through the representations of the applicant, his below benchmark ACRs and did not find any specific ground by which the upgradation could be done. He further submitted that the zonal Screening Committees allowed the applicant to cross EB w.e.f. 1.10.1990 after assessing his performance on the basis of his ACRs. The said recommendations were accepted and order issued in OM dated 01.11.2011. In the meantime, the Honble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 02.11.2010 in CWP No.2156/2010 directed the respondents to constitute a Review Committee to decide the case of the applicant for grant of second financial benefits under ACP Scheme. Accordingly, the review Departmental Screening Committee was held on 01.02.2011 and after assessing his performance on the basis of his ACRs found him eligible for grant of second financial upgradation under ACP Scheme w.e.f. 1.07.2006. The said Committee recommended that the case of crossing of EB of the applicant to be reviewed by constituting a Review Zonal EB Committee which met on 18.05.2011 but did not recommend the applicant to cross EB w.e.f. 01.10.1990 since the committee found his overall assessment as Average. The recommendations of the review Zonal EB Committee was accepted by the Competent Authority and earlier recommendations made by Zonal EB Committee vide OM dated 16.11.2000 was cancelled vide Officer Order dated 20.06.2011. In view of the above facts, Shri H.K. Gangwani would submit that the applicants claim for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer grade is not possible to be taken up on the ground that he has not been granted the pay after crossing of the EB. The Applicants gradings in the ACRs are almost Average and his Efficiency Bar recommendations granted by the earlier Zonal EB Committee recommendations has been cancelled and not given effect to, Shri Gangwani would urge to dismiss the OA.
5. After hearing the case for some time on 09.09.2011, we ordered following :
We have heard arguments at some length. We are of the view that this matter needs to be taken up for hearing after OA No.854/CH/2011 filed by the applicant in Chandigarh Bench is disposed of. It may be mentioned that the said OA has been filed challenging withdrawal of Efficiency Bar of the applicant after 21 years. The applicant has even though obtained stay in the OA referred to above from Chandigarh Bench, yet we think it appropriate that present matter may be taken up for hearing after decision of the said OA as the same would have crucial bearing upon the decision of the present case. Inasmuch as, the applicant is roaming in the corridors of the CAT, High Court and Supreme Court for a long time, a copy of this order be sent to Honble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand, Head of the Department in the Chandigarh Bench with a request to expedite disposal of the OA.
2. Hearing of this matter is adjourned sine die. The applicant or even the respondents may apply immediately after the decision of the OA pending before the Chandigarh Bench.
6. Pursuant to the above orders, the applicant through MA No.2735/2011 submitted the copy of the judgment of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.854/CH/2011 decided on 05.10.2011. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below:-
2. Initially, a Review Departmental Screening Committee, at its meeting held on 1/2/2011, found the applicant herein eligible for the grant of second ACP w.e.f. 01.7.2006. The Committee also found the applicant fit for crossing the EB and made a recommendation therefore. However, the Review Zonal EB Committee, at the time of consideration, found the applicant unfit for crossing the EB. It recommended the cancellation of the financial benefit granted to the applicant in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Review Departmental Screening Committee.
3. In the context of the averment made on behalf of the applicant that the impugned cancellation came about without the applicant having been affording an opportunity of a hearing, we have called upon the learned counsel for the respondents to offer a record based stance. The learned counsel has been through the record and states that the averment qua the non-affording of an opportunity of a hearing is factually accurate.
4. It is to state that the obvious that an order, at the hands of the competent authority of a departmental dispensation, which is adverse in character vis-`-vis an employee, can validly come about only after an opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the concerned employee. It is then only that he would be able to have his say and show cause against the proposed adverse order.
5. We have, accordingly, no reservations in holding that the impugned order dated 20.6.2011 (Annexure A-1) deserves invalidation and we order accordingly. The allowance of this O.A. shall not impede consideration afresh at the hands of the Review Zonal EB Committee, if it wants to proceed afresh in the matter, in its own discretion. In that eventuality, the Review Zonal Committee shall afford an opportunity of a hearing to the applicant herein before undertaking consideration.
6. The grievance of the applicant challenging the very competence of the Review Zonal EB Committee for want of any rule-related authorization, may be taken care of by the Committee in the first instance before the exercise at re-visiting the invalidated consideration is undertaken. In the course of consideration, the Committee may also consider the fact and the effect of any inordinate delay which may have intervened the grant of the financial benefit and the proposed cancellation thereof. We have noticed these two facets of grievances raised by the learned counsel for the applicant during the course of hearing.
7. In view of the directions to the Review Zonal EB Committee to afford the applicant an opportunity of a hearing, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has raised the issue of competence of the Committee and the inordinate delay. We may add to the said directions one more aspect for consideration by the Competent Authority i.e. Once the clearance for applicants EB was granted earlier, is it open to the Review Departmental Screening Committee considering applicants claim for 2nd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme to assess him Unfit for EB? If the Competent Authority finds that there is no provision to review the clearance of EB already granted to the applicant, he would be entitled to the attendant financial benefits. The next issue adjunct to the above is that if he has got EB clearance on 01.10.1996 (para 4 (C) of impugned letter refer) on the basis of the ACRs from 1984 to 1990, how the same ACR can stand against his promotion either in the panel of 1995-96 or 1996-97?
8. After hearing this case, the OA was reserved on 18.10.2011. While writing the judgment, we noticed that four points have not been argued which are relevant in determining the issues in the OA. Accordingly, on 15.11.2011, we directed the respondents to file an affidavit with copy to the applicant furnishing details on the following four points along with copy of relevant records/documents/guidelines:-
The applicants EB was cleared in the running pay scale of `2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500 on 01.10.1990. In the reply affidavit, the respondents have stated that review zonal EB Committee held on 18.5.2011 did not recommend him to cross EB w.e.f. 01.10.1990. What was the necessity to hold review zonal EB Committee to reopen the EB which was granted 20 years back? Is review of the EB earlier sanctioned admissible? If so who is competent and when such a review can be carried out? What are the relevant rules/guidelines which envisage such review?
It is also noticed from the impugned order that the applicant is working as Executive Engineer (EE). When he was promoted to EE grade, what ACRs were considered for his promotion and what were his gradings by the authorities? Minutes of the DPC which recommended his promotion as EE may be filed.
The applicant was granted 2nd financial upgradation under ACP Scheme w.e.f. 01.07.2006 by the DPC which met on 01.02.2011. It is relevant to know the ACRs and the gradings therein considered by DPC for the purpose. Minutes of the DPC and grading tabulation sheet may be furnished.
The case of the applicant for promotion to the post of EE was put in sealed cover for 1995-96 and 1996-97 panel years. The applicant continued under suspension even upto 2003 and the said suspension period was treated as duty for all intents and purpose. Year wise DPCs are held for filling up vacancies in the EE grade. It would be proper to know what was the recommendations of DPC from 1997-98 panel year upto the year he was actually promoted to the post of EE.
9. Having heard contention of the parties, very carefully we considered the facts of the case and perused the pleadings and relied on judgments as well. The applicant has furnished various judgments for our perusal. A close and careful and thoughtful perusal of those judgements, we find that the facts and circumstances of the applicant in the present OA are far different and dissimilar to the facts and circumstance in those judgments. Therefore, the ratio and law laid in those judgment would not be applicable but are clearly distinguishable. The issues raised before us by the applicant for determination in the present OA are viz:-
whether the impugned order dated 22.07.2010 is legal maintainable or not; and whether the applicants case is fit to reconsider for promotion to the grade of Executive Engineer (Civil) for the panel year 1995-96 or 1996-97 or for subsequent years.
whether cancellation of EB sanctioned to the applicant w.e.f. 1.10.1990 is legally sustainable?
10. The principal challenge by the applicant is on the rejection of his representation against the below benchmark gradings given in the ACRs for the year 1984 to 1991. It is seen that in most of the years he has got either Average or Fair and only in two years his gradings have been Good. It is not the case of the applicant that one officer alone has given him Fair or Average grading. It is noticed that many officers acting as Reporting or Reviewing Authorities have given him the gradings for those years. We have also perused the impugned order dated 22.07.2010 wherein in a routine manner the competent authority has analysed the grounds taken by the applicant in his representation dated 4.06.2010 on those gradings in his ACRs. In Paragraph 3 of the impugned letter, the competent authority has analysed those grounds for different period wise namely, 21.10.1984 to 31.03.1985, 1.04.1985 to 31.10.1985, 1.04.1986 to 31.07.1986, 14.08.1986 to 18.12.1986, 1.04.1987 to 31.03.1988, 7.09.1988 to 31.08.1989, 1.04.1989 to 31.03.1990 and 6.12.1990 to 31.03.1991. It is seen that the applicant did not give his representation for the period 1.04.1990 to 28.09.1990 as he got the grading of Good during that period from the Reviewing Officer. For these periods very casual analysis has been done by the competent authority in his comments in Paragraph 4 of the impugned letter.
11. At this stage, we may refer to the copy of the ACRs available in the pleadings for our analysis. The following Table shows that the ACR of the applicant was not available as (i) the same was not written by the concerned authorities for the period from 01.04.1987 upto 06.09.1988 for which the applicant cannot be held responsible; and (ii) the applicant was under suspension from 29.4.1991 upto 27.1.2003 and the said period has been regularized as duty for all intents and purpose. The overall grading assigned in ACRs is stated below:-
Overall assessment done in terms of Grading by Sl.No. Period Reporting Officer Reviewing Officer Countersigning Officer
1. 21.10.1984 to 31.03.1985 Fair Fair Fair
2. 01.04.1985 to 31.10.1985 Fair Fair Fair
3. 01.04.1986 to 31.07.1986 Average Average Average
4. 14.08.1986 to 18.12.1986 Average Good -
5. 01.04.1987 to 31.03.1988 -No CR was Written
6. 01.04.1988 to 06.09.1988 -No CR was Written
7. 07.09.1988 to 31.03.1989 Average - Average
8. 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1990 Average Satisfactory Satisfactory
9. 01.04.1990 to 28.09.1990 Satisfactory Good Good
10. 06.12.1990 to 31.03.1991 Very Good Very Good Good No CR was written as the applicant was under suspension from 29.04.1991 to 27.01.2003.
12. After going through the comments of the respondents on the applicants representation, we do not find any justifiable ground calling for our interference. In a matter like this there is very little scope of judicial interference, more specifically, applying under the provisions of judicial review exercised by this Tribunal. Of course, we cannot substitute our views and comments, nor we can upgrade the ratings of the applicant in the ACR gradings. It is the Reporting, Reviewing and Countersigning/Accepting Authorities who are competent to assess the applicants performance in those years when he was working with them. We find that there has been consistently the grading of the applicant as Average and Very rarely he has been assigned the rating of Good. Sympathy has no place in the matters like this as the applicant has been very fervently pleaded his case before us almost drawing sympathy to issue certain directions to the respondents. The performance of the officers is assessed in a three tier system. The ACR form is first filled up by the officer reported on. Therefore, the Reporting Officer assessed the officer in two groups i.e. Group A Professional Knowledge and Group B General Assessment in 6 level gradings viz; A (Outstanding), B (Very Good), C (Good i.e. quite effective), D (Fair i.e. performs duty moderately well and without serious short comings), E (Not quite adequate i.e. suffers from certain weaknesses which prevent his performance achieving the Fair level), and F (Unsatisfactory i.e. definitely not being able to perform his duties satisfactorily). The note in the Form indicates that Boxes E and F shall be considered as adverse remarks. The second level assessment is by the Reviewing Officer who assesses the performance in three columns. Third, and the last level assessment is by the Countersigning Officer. On the basis of our understanding of the above system, we notice that the applicant has not been assessed as either E or F in various columns/Boxes in his ACRs. Thus, all his ACRs are free from adverse remarks. The Bench Mark for promotion being Good, we find from the Table above that he has been rated Very Good or Good for three periods and all other periods grading has been satisfactory or Average or Fair. It is worthwhile to notice that though applicant has been stated to be active and intelligent but when it comes to the grading he has not been assigned Good. In those years, below bench mark gradings or downgrading of ACRs were not communicated to the officers concerned. So also the applicant could not get his ACRs then. Now after Honble Supreme Court judgment in Dev Dutt Versus Union of India and Others [2008-8-SCC-725] such ACRs are to be communicated to the concerned officer to represent and on receipt of request for upgradation or not. Now, after about two decades when the applicant received the ACRs, with his fading memory he could furnish his grounds in the representations and the Competent Authority disposed of the same in a routine manner. We are aware of the review powers of the Tribunal. We cannot substitute our views with those of the executive. But, the close scrutiny of the ACRs would disclose that the applicant could have received better treatment from the respondents, keeping in view that (i) he got his EB clearance on 01.10.1990; (ii) his suspension period was treated as duty and (iii) he got the second financial upgradation under ACP in the year 2006. If some of the parameters as applicable for promotion are applied while considering the applicant for EB clearance or ACP Scheme benefits, he would surely be eligible for promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer (Civil).
13. The ACR gradings are considered by the DPC or review DPC for assessing the concerned official fit or unfit for promotion and available ACRs of five preceding years are required for the purpose. In the present case the applicant was considered for the year 1995-96 and 1996-97. As the applicant was under suspension from 1991 to 2003, ACRs of those years are not available. The DPC and review DPC have considered available ACRs from 1984 to 1991. Even for those years, for some periods ACRs are not available. As per the extant rules, the review DPC can also refer to his ACRs available prior to October, 1984 to meet the period short of full five years. For better assessment of his performance, even the review DPC can take a comprehensive view of his performance right from the date he joined service in August 1976. This being a specially typical case, such special methods can be adopted.
14. Thus, the issue relating to the maintainability of the impugned order dated 22.07.2010 is answered in the positive. However, with regard to the second issue to reconsider applicants case for promotion as EE (Civil), the respondents are directed to convene a special DPC and our directions within should be kept in view while the review DPC considers the case.
15. It is noted that the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal has already pronounced the judgment in OA No.854/CH/2011 on 05.10.2011 which has very extensively dealt with the issue of Efficiency Bar pertaining to the applicant. By the said judgment, the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 whereby the Efficiency Bar benefits were withdrawn has already been quashed and set aside. In view of the said order, the respondents should follow the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in redressing the grievance of the applicant raised on Efficiency Bar.
16. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, for the reasons given within, the OA is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to constitute a review DPC to reconsider the case of the applicant for promotion to the grade of EE (Civil) for the years 1995-96 and thereafter.
17. The OA is disposed of in terms of our above orders and directions. However, the same will be subject to the outcome of the Review Application which has been filed by the respondents before the Honble Apex Court in the SLP No.3355/2010.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /pj/