Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Chet Ram Choudhary And Ors vs Health And Medical Education ... on 9 April, 2026
:: 1 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 &
TA 119/2025
Reserved on: - 17.09.2025
Pronounced on: - 09.04.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. TA/222/2022
1. Krishan Lal Anand (Age 50 years) S/O Late Sh. Girdhari Lal R/O
Plot No:-115, Main Stop Janipur, Jammu
2. Musrat Jabeen (Age 51 years) D/o Mohd Bashir Shawal, R/O
W.No:-3, Khoera Tehsil Rajouri, District Rajouri
3. Tanveer Hussain Khan (Age 46 years) S/O Talib Hussain R/O
Azmalabad, Tehsil Thanamandi, Dístrict Rajouri
4. Rajinder Paul Tora, (Age 54 years) S/O Sh. Baldev Raj R/O
Dabber Potha, Tehsil Nowshera District Rajouri
5. Mohd Javid Malik (Age 50 years) S/O Fauir Ullah R/O Darhal,
Tehsil Darhal District Rajouri
6. Chanchal Kumari (Age 52 years) D/O Nand Lal R/O Dhangri
Tehsil Rajouri District Rajouri
7. Saleem Sanhotra (Age 49 years) S/O Amroo R/O Ward No:-7,
Tehsil Rajouri, District Rajouri
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
8. Tripta Devi (Age 53 years) W/O Sh. Bishan Dass R/O
Thalora(Manwal) Tehsil Majalta, District Udhampur
9. Mohd Farooq Mir (Age 52 years) S/O Abdul Aziz Mir R/O
Rajdhani, Tehsil Thanamandi District Rajouri
10.Mukhtar Ahmed Wani (Age 56 years) S/O Sh. Mohd Ismaiel Wani
R/O Tehsil Thanamandi, District Rajouri
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. M K Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/ Secretary to Government,
Health and Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat,
Srinagar
2. Director, Health Services, Jammu
...Respondent
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG)
2. TA/261/2022
1. Chet Ram Choudhary (Age 65 years) S/O Late Sh. Sant Ram R/O
CEO Office Road, Udhampur
2. Bodh Raj (Age 53 years) S/O Lt. Sh. Tej Ram Sharma R/O Village
Kotli Pain, P/O Garhi, Tehsil and District Udhampur
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
3. Shiv Raj Singh (Age 54 years) S/O Sh. Anchal Singh R/O Barwal,
Kathua.
4. Om Parkash (Age 58 years) S/O Sh. Ganga Ram R/O Bhaiya
Tehsil Hiranagar, Kathua
5. Satwantar Singh (Age 57 years) S/O Sh. Balbadhar Singh R/O
IANE-3, Shiva Colony, Raipur, Bantalab, Jammu.
6. Goutam Singh Jamwal, (Age 56 years) S/O Sh. Ranveer Singh
Jamwa! R/O H.No. 159-A, Lane No.6 Sector-11, Nanak Nagar,
Jammu
7. Satish Chander Nag (Age 58 years) S/O Late Mansa Ram Nag
R/OC/O H.No 329, JMC 395 Street No 12, Talab Tillo, Jammu
8. Dil Mohd (Age 49 years) S/O Ghulam Mohd R/O Parat Tehsil
Mendhar,District Poonch
9. Rajesh Verma (Age 51 years) S/O Sh. Thakur Dass Verma R/O
H.NO:-138-G, Sector-1, Durga Nagar, Bantalab, Jammu
10.Naresh Kumari (Age 53 years) W/O Sh.Shadi Lal R/O Gaiterwan
P.O.Mehtabpur Tehsil and District Kathua
11.Naresh Kumari (Age 59 years) W/O Kuldeep Singh R/O Saba
Chak, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua
12.. Vijay Kumari (Age 51 years) W/O Sh. Joginder Pal R/O W.No.
4, Near Minerva Public School, Krishna Colony, Kathua
13.Veena Devi (Age 57 years) W/O Sh. Ram Pal R/O Patel Nagar,
Kathua
14.Ekta Sahi (Age 40 years) D/O Lt. Sh. Subash Singh Sahi R/O 112-
E, Sainik Colony, Jammu
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
15.Kartar Nath (Age 59 years) S/O Late Sh. Milkhi Ram R/O W. No.
10, Kathua
16.Parvinderjeet Kour (Age 42 years) D/O S. J.S.Chahal R/O H.No.
123, Preet Nagar, Digiana, Jammu
17.Randev Singh (Age 54 years) S/O Sh. Surat Singh R/O H.No. 1240
MCЈ, Lane No 30, Rajpura Jammu
18.Sudama Sharma (Age 56 Years) S/O Late Sh. Inder Dass Sharma
R/O230 Prem Nagar, New Plot, Jammu
19.Darshan Lal (Age 57 years) S/O Sh. Punnu Ram R/O Miran Sahib,
Jammu
20.Nahid Anjum (Age 42 years) W/O Abdul Rehman Malik R/O
Iqbal Lane, Nowabad Chowk, Sunjawan Road, Jammu
21.Suresh Gupta (Age 50 years) S/O Sh. Mohan Lal Gupta R/O H.No.
28 F, Haji Pura, Last Morh, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
22.Seema Kumari (Age 53 years) W/O Sh. Vinod Kumar R/O Plot
No. 227 Sarwal Chowk, Jammu
23.Sukhdev Singh (Age 62 years) S/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o Post Office
Gali, tea garden katra, Dist. Reasi
24.Rashpal Singh Jamwal (Age 71 years) S/o Sh. Natha Singh jamwal
R/o House No. 1179, Kanak Mandi, Jammu
25.Mohinder Kour (Age 56 yrs) D/O S. Jasvant Singh R/O Mohalla
Kama Khan Ward No. 7 Tehsil Haveli District Poonch.
26.Ahjaz Hussain Shah (Age 60 yrs) S/O Sh. Lal Hussain Shah R/O
Potha Tehsil Surankote, District Poonch
27.Devinder Bakshi age 62 yrs. s/o lt. sh. Tilak Raj Bakshi R/O
H.NO.49 Vermarg residency Raod Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. M K Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/ Secretary to Government,
Health and Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu.
2. Director, Health Services, Jammu
3. Accountant General, J&K, Jammu
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG)
3. TA/119/2025
1. Sushma Kapahi, (Age 70 years) W/O Sh. S.K. Nanda R/O H.No.
60, Purani Mandi, Jammu
2. Raj Sharma (Age 68 years) W/O Sh. Rajinder Sharma R/O 52-D,
Bharat Nagar, Talab Tillo, Jammu
3. Teju Ram (Age 72 years) S/O Lt. Sh. Rohlu Ram R/O Village
Chatha Pind, P.O. Bohr Camp, Jammu.
4. Sukrita Kumari (Age 70 yorrs) W/o Lt. Sh. Dharammir Gupte R/O
House No. 18 Ward No. 2, R.S.Pura, Jammu.
5. Prem Kour Sudan (Age 71 years) W/O Sh. Daleep Singh R/o
Railway Line Patri, Miran Sahib, Jammu.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
6. Tejinder Kour (Age 72 years) W/o Lt. Sn. Daljeet Singh
R/OH.No.1183, Lane No.3, Sector-6, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.
7. Amarjit Kour Wd/o Lt. Isher Singh R/o 346-A Gandhi Nagar
Jammu
...Applicants
(Advocate: - Mr. M K Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. State of J&K through Commissioner/ Secretary to Government,
Health and Medical Education Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu/Srinagar.
2. Director, Health Services, Kashmir, Jammu
3. Accountant General, J&K, Jammu
...Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 7 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The SWP No.1389/2017 & 710/2017 & 1125/2017 was transferred from the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A No.222/2022 & 261/2022 & 119/2025 respectively by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon'ble High Court seeking following relief: -
1. TA/222/2022
a) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, including one, in the nature of Certiorari, the impugned order/communication No. HD/Legal/ NGMR-345/2014 dated 13.02.2017 issued by respondent No.1 and endorsed by Respondent No.2 vide No:-
DHSJ/Legal/12674- 89, dated 23-02-2017 to the extent it relates to the Petitioners, be quashed.
b) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, including one, in the nature of Mandamus, to command upon the Official Respondents not to proceed against or initiate any corrective steps/recovery in terms of the impugned order/communications against the Petitioners.
c) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, be granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
2. TA/261/2022 HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
a) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, including one, in the nature of Certiorari, the impugned order/communication No. HD/Legal/ NGMR-345/2014 dated 13.02.2017 issued by respondent No.1 and endorsed by Respondent No.2 vide No:-
DHSJ/Legal/12674-89, dated 23-02-2017 to the extent it relates to the Petitioners, be quashed.
b) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, including one, in the nature of Mandamus, to command upon the Official Respondents not to proceed against or initiate any corrective steps/recovery in terms of the impugned order/communications against the Petitioners.
c) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, be granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
3. TA/119/2025
a) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, including one, in the nature of Certiorari, the impugned order/çommunication No. HD/Legal/ NGMR-345/2014 dated 13.02.2017 issued by respondent No.1 and endorsed by Respondent No.2 vide No:-
DHSJ/Legal/12674-89, dated 23-02-2017 to the extent it relates to the Petitioners, is quashed.
b) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, including one, in the nature of Mandamus, to command upon the Official Respondents not to proceed against or initiate any corrective steps/recovery in terms of the impugned order/communications against the Petitioners.
c) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper, be granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioners in their pleadings are as follows: -
a) The present batch of Transfer Applications arises out of writ petitions originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, which upon transfer stand registered as TA No. 222/2022, TA No. 261/2022 and TA No. 119/2025. All the matters involve identical questions of fact and law and are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment.
b) The applicants in all the three matters were appointed and subsequently promoted on different dates as Community Health Officers (CHOs) in the Health and Medical Education Department of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir. The posts of CHOs were originally created during the mid-1980s under various Government Orders with a sanctioned pay scale of Rs. 1000-2000 (pre-revised), which was subsequently revised from time to time.
c) It is the case of the applicants that though they were discharging duties on the posts of CHOs since their respective dates of promotion (many since 1997), they were denied the pay scale HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025 attached to the said post. Instead, they were continued on lower pay scales, thereby causing financial prejudice and discrimination.
d) Aggrieved of such denial, similarly situated CHOs had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing SWP No. 782/1998 titled Subash Chand & Ors. vs. State of J&K, which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 12.11.1999, directing the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 (pre-
revised) and corresponding revised scales under the 5th Pay Commission.
e) The said judgment was modified on 07.07.2000 to correct the pay scale, and thereafter upheld by the Division Bench in LPASW No. 438/2001 vide judgment dated 24.02.2010. The challenge carried further by way of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court also came to be dismissed on 05.12.2014, thereby rendering the issue final.
f) Following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, several other CHOs, including the present applicants, approached the High Court in subsequent writ petitions seeking parity with the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025 beneficiaries of the judgment in Subash Chand's case. These writ petitions were allowed in 2010 with directions to extend similar benefits.
g) The respondents, after prolonged litigation and examination of the matter, obtained concurrence from the Finance Department and placed the issue before the Cabinet. The Cabinet approved implementation of the judgments vide Decision No. 146/Cir/2015 dated 20.10.2015, pursuant to which Government Order No. 718-HME of 2015 dated 28.10.2015 (and subsequent order dated 19.10.2016 in certain cases) was issued granting the revised pay scales to the petitioners.
h) However, the benefit of the said Government Orders was restricted to those employees who had approached the Court, and thereafter the respondents issued the impugned communication dated 13.02.2017 (endorsed on 23.02.2017), clarifying that the said Government Orders did not carry any retrospective effect.
i) The applicants contend that the said clarification effectively nullifies the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court, which had HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 12 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025 attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and deprives them of rightful monetary benefits from the dates they became entitled.
j) In TA No. 119/2025, the applicants are mostly retired CHOs (or legal heirs), who claim that denial of retrospective benefits has also adversely affected their pension and retiral dues.
k) The applicants further assert that once the judgments had been implemented and monetary benefits released, the subsequent attempt to deny retrospective effect and initiate recovery proceedings is arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and amounts to indirect modification of binding judicial decisions.
l) It is also pleaded that interim orders passed by the High Court in similar matters had restrained the respondents from effecting recoveries pursuant to the impugned communications.
4. The respondents have filed their reply statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have contested the applications by raising preliminary objections that the applicants have no enforceable HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025 legal right and that the present applications are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
b) The respondents submit that the benefits granted vide Government Order dated 28.10.2015 were accepted by the applicants without protest, and therefore, they cannot now turn around and seek additional benefits including retrospective monetary claims.
c) It is further contended that the original judgment in Subash Chand's case was rendered in the absence of a proper contest by the department, and the higher pay scale came to be granted on account of the case remaining unrebutted. According to the respondents, the matter was not properly defended and the relief granted therein cannot be treated as a precedent conferring a legal right upon all similarly situated employees.
d) The respondents submit that Community Health Officers were initially appointed under a centrally sponsored scheme, and several procedural and eligibility requirements, including prescribed training, were not fulfilled by the applicants.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 14 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
e) It is stated that the Finance Department had observed serious irregularities in handling the matter, including absence of recruitment rules, lack of clarity in selection process, and non- compliance with training requirements.
f) The respondents further rely upon the fact that Recruitment Rules for the post of CHO have now been notified in 2022, wherein the post carries Pay Level-6F, and not the higher scale claimed by the applicants.
g) It is argued that grant of higher pay scale (equivalent to Level-
9) to non-gazetted employees like CHOs would lead to serious anomalies, as even gazetted officers in the department draw lower or comparable scales.
h) The respondents emphasize that retrospective financial benefits are not permissible under financial rules, including provisions of the General Financial Rules and J&K Financial Code, and therefore, the clarification issued vide communication dated 13.02.2017 is legally justified.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
i) It is also contended that once it has been found that the applicants were not originally entitled to the higher pay scale, the question of granting retrospective benefits does not arise.
j) The respondents further submit that extension of benefits based on parity is not permissible where the original grant itself is erroneous, relying upon settled law that there can be no equality in illegality.
k) It is lastly submitted that the department is examining the issue regarding grant of higher pay scales and the role of officials involved, and necessary corrective measures are being taken in accordance with law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The present batch of Transfer Applications, arising out of writ petitions earlier filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, involves identical facts, common questions of law and challenge to the same impugned communications dated 13.02.2017 and 23.02.2017. All the matters are, therefore, taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 16 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
6. The applicants, who were promoted as Community Health Officers (CHOs) on different dates and have either served or retired from the said posts, are aggrieved of the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned communications whereby it has been clarified that Government Order No. 718-HME of 2015 dated 28.10.2015 (and subsequent orders) shall not have retrospective effect and consequential recovery/corrective steps are liable to be initiated.
7. The factual matrix reveals that the applicants had been discharging duties as CHOs since their respective promotions, but were denied the pay scale attached to the said post. The controversy regarding entitlement to the pay scale stood settled as early as on 12.11.1999 in SWP No. 782/1998 titled Subash Chand & Ors. vs. State of J&K, wherein the Hon'ble High Court directed grant of pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 (pre-revised) and corresponding revised scale under the 5 th Pay Commission. The said judgment was modified on 07.07.2000 only to the extent of correcting the scale, upheld by the Division Bench in LPASW No. 438/2001 on 24.02.2010 and thereafter affirmed by dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 05.12.2014. The issue, thus, attained finality.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 17 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
8. Consequent upon the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, similarly situated CHOs including the present applicants approached the High Court in subsequent writ petitions, which were also allowed directing extension of the same benefit. The respondents, after obtaining concurrence of the Finance Department and approval of the Cabinet, issued Government Order No. 718-HME of 2015 dated 28.10.2015 (and order dated 19.10.2016), implementing the judgments and granting the higher pay scale.
9. It is not in dispute that the said Government Orders were acted upon, implemented and monetary benefits were released to the applicants. However, thereafter, the respondents issued the impugned communications dated 13.02.2017 and 23.02.2017, seeking to restrict the operation of the Government Orders prospectively and paving the way for recovery or denial of arrears.
10. The core issue, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether after implementation of judicial orders, affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and after grant of benefits through Government Orders, the respondents can retrospectively alter the position and effect recovery or deny accrued benefits.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 18 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025
11. The stand of the respondents that the original judgment of 1999 was passed due to non-filing of reply and that the applicants were not otherwise entitled to the benefit, cannot be accepted at this stage. Once the judgment has attained finality after dismissal of LPA and SLP, the same binds the parties and cannot be reopened in collateral proceedings. The doctrine of finality of litigation and binding nature of judicial pronouncements squarely applies.
12. Further, the respondents themselves, after due deliberation, concurrence of the Finance Department and approval of the Cabinet, consciously implemented the judgments by issuing Government Orders in the year 2015 and 2016. The implementation was not provisional or conditional but a complete and conscious act of compliance with judicial directions. Having implemented the same, the respondents are estopped from turning around and contending that the applicants were not entitled.
13. The impugned communications, in effect, seek to modify the effect of judicial pronouncements and Government Orders, which is impermissible in law. It is settled that executive instructions cannot HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 19 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025 override or nullify judicial orders. Any such attempt would amount to indirect disobedience of binding judgments.
14. The action of the respondents in seeking to deny retrospective benefits or effect recovery is also hit by the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it has been categorically held that recovery from employees, particularly when the payment was not obtained by misrepresentation or fraud and where the employees have either retired or are low paid, is impermissible in law.
15. In the present case, the applicants have neither misrepresented any fact nor played any fraud. The benefits were granted pursuant to judicial orders and implemented by the Government itself. Therefore, any recovery or withdrawal of such benefits would be wholly arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law.
16. The contention of the respondents regarding financial constraints, absence of recruitment rules or subsequent notification of rules in 2022 is also of no avail. Rights which have accrued to the applicants on the basis of binding judicial pronouncements and implemented Government Orders cannot be taken away on such grounds.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 20 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025 Subsequent rules cannot operate retrospectively to divest vested rights.
17. The plea that there cannot be equality in illegality is equally misconceived in the facts of the present case. The benefit was not granted illegally but under binding judicial orders which attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and were duly implemented. Therefore, the same cannot be termed as an illegality.
18. It is also relevant to note that some of the applicants have already retired and their retiral benefits have been settled on the basis of the pay scale granted. Any attempt to disturb the same at this stage would be wholly inequitable and violative of the principles of certainty in service jurisprudence.
19. The impugned communications dated 13.02.2017 and 23.02.2017, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as they are arbitrary, contrary to binding judicial pronouncements, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and hit by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
20. In view of the above discussion, all the Transfer Applications are allowed. The impugned communications dated 13.02.2017 and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 ::TA 222/2022 & TA 261/2022 & TA 119/2025 23.02.2017 are hereby quashed to the extent they restrict the benefits granted to the applicants or permit any recovery.
21. It is further directed that the benefits already granted to the applicants pursuant to Government Orders dated 28.10.2015 and 19.10.2016 shall not be disturbed and no recovery shall be effected from the applicants on any count. In case any recovery has already been made, the same shall be refunded to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22. The respondents shall also ensure that all consequential benefits, including arrears and retiral dues, if any, are released in favour of the applicants in accordance with the aforesaid Government Orders.
23. No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit/
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV