Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Frank Antony Rego vs D/O Revenue on 8 February, 2021
1 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION Nos. 170/01083/2019,
170/01084/2019, 170/01085/2019, 170/01086/2019,
170/01087/2019, 170/01088/2019, 170/01089/2019,
170/01090/2019, 170/01091/2019, 170/01092/2019,
170/01093/2019, 170/01094/2019, 170/01095/2019 AND
170/01096/2019
ORDER RESERVED ON 15.12.2020
DATE OF ORDER: 08.02.2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
OA No. 170/01083/2019
Shanthamma
D/o late Venkatappa,
Aged 47 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe,
Mission Road,
Bengaluru, R/o Bengaluru ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01084/2019
Muniswamy A,
S/o Late Arumugam,
Aged 46 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Commissioner of Income Tax (I & CI),
C.R. Building, Annexe, Queens Road,
Bangalore, R/o Bangalore ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01085/2019
Ravi M,
S/o Marie,
Aged 46 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road,
Bangalore, R/o Bangalore ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
3 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01086/2019
Lakshminarayana,
S/o Mayanna,
Aged 39 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road,
Bangalore, R/o Bangalore ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01087/2019
Ramesh S,
S/o Subramani,
Aged 39 years
4 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road,
Bengaluru, R/o Bengaluru ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01088/2019
Kumbar Mallappa Basappa,
S/o Late Kumbar Basappa Balappa,
Aged 50 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Commissioner of Income Tax,
Ward-1, Gadag R/o Gadag 582 101 ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
5 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
OA No. 170/01089/2019
Annadurai,
S/o Late M. Raju,
Aged 49 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe,
Mission Road,
Bangalore, R/o Bangalore ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01090/2019
V. Shiva Shankar,
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged 39 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road,
Bangalore, R/o Bangalore ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
6 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01091/2019
Frank Antony Rego
S/o S.A. Francis,
Aged 39 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions),
Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road,
Bengaluru, R/o No. 25/1, Unity line,
Ejipura, Viveknagar, Bengaluru 560 047 ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01092/2019
H. Nanjundaiah,
S/o Honnappa
Aged 39 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road,
Bangalore R/o Bangalore ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
7 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01093/2019
Prakasha M,
S/o Madaiah
Aged 45 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe,
Mission Road,
Bangalore, R/o Bangalore ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
8 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
OA No. 170/01094/2019
S. Mahendra Verma,
S/o K.V. Selvaraj,
Aged 45 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Unity Building Annexe,
Mission Road, Bangalore
R/o No. 33, SNT Street,
Nala Road, Gupta Layout, Ulsoor,
Bangalore 560 008 ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01095/2019
Mohan G,
S/o George,
Aged 39 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions),
Unity Building Annexe,
Mission Road,
Bengaluru, R/o Bangalore ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
9 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
OA No. 170/01096/2019
Ganesh M. Kadargunti,
S/o Late Mutteltappa,
Aged 47 years
Occ: Casual Labour on temporary status
O/o Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Navanagar, Hubbali - 25
R/o Hubbali ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri M.V. Krishna Mohan)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi 110 001
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
C.R. Building, Queens Road,
Bangalore 560 001 .....Respondents
(By Shri M.V. Rao, Senior Panel Counsel)
10 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
ORDER
PER: SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
The Original Application Nos. 170/01083/2019, 170/01084/2019, 170/01085/2019, 170/01086/2019, 170/01087/2019, 170/01088/2019, 170/01089/2019, 170/01090/2019, 170/01091/2019, 170/01092/2019, 170/01093/2019, 170/01094/2019, 170/01095/2019, 170/01096/2019 are taken up together for disposal as a common question of law and fact is involved in all these cases. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, Original Application No. 170/01083/2019 has been treated as a lead case and the facts are extracted from and the said case.
2. Pleaded case of the applicant herein is that he joined the services of respondent department on 01.08.1997 on casual basis. While working as such, the department had granted temporary status to applicant on 13.06.2000 along with other similarly situated persons. It has been averred that on completion of 3 years of casual service, the applicant became eligible for regularization of his services and there was a clear vacancy available in the department to regularize his services on a Group-D post. As such, his services ought to have been regularized in the year 2000 itself and his pay and seniority also should have been fixed with effect from the said year. However, the respondents have not regularized his services though the applicant is eligible for regularization of services and a clear vacancy is also available in the respondent department. It has further been averred that in other Commissionerates of the respondent department i.e. (i) Chief 11 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE & CONNECTED MATTERS Commissioner of Income Tax, UP West, Ghaziabad (ii) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneshwar (iii) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata (iv) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow (v) Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna, number of similarly situated employees have been regularized in the year 2009 and 2010. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicant had submitted representation dated 20.07.2018 and claimed regularization of his services at par with the similarly situated casual employees. The said representation did not evoke any response. There is no reason with the respondents to not to regularize the applicant's services. Being aggrieved, the applicant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. The respondents by way of filing a joint reply have joined the defence and opposed the applicant's claim for regularization of his services. It has been averred that the applicant joined the Income Tax Department on casual basis on 01.08.1997 and he was granted temporary status vide order dated 13.06.2000. As per DOPT OM dated 16.10.2014, following the acceptance of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, all Group 'D' posts have been upgraded to Group 'C' posts. Recruitment to erstwhile Group 'D' posts placed in Group 'C' PB-1 with Grade Pay Rs. 1800/- (Non-technical) MT Staff are now being made only through Staff Selection Commission and minimum educational qualification for appointment to said post is matriculation or ITI pass. Regularization of 12 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE & CONNECTED MATTERS casual labourers with temporary status, therefore, cannot be made by the Ministries/Departments on their own and requires relaxation of Para 8 of the Appendix to OM dated 10.09.1993. It has further been averred that there is no provision for regularization of casual labourers on completion of 3 years of casual service as per recruitment rules. As per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others ILR 2006 KAR 2607, regularization is a one time measure and it is not a continuous process. Since the applicant had less than 10 years of service to his credit on 10.04.2006, therefore, in terms of CBDT letter dated 22.07.2009, the services of the applicant cannot be regularized. It has further been stated that the CCIT, UP West had issued the order dated 30.01.2009 regularizing the services of casual labourers in his charge before the issuance of the CBDT letter dated 22.07.2009 fixing the cut off date for reckoning the tenure of 10 years service as on 10.04.2006. It has further been reiterated that since the applicant has not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, therefore, his services cannot be regularized.
4. By way of filing an additional reply, the respondents have further stated that following recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the Group 'D' cadre recruitment rules have been superseded by Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010 vide CBDT Notification dated 17.01.2011. The Recruitment Rules provide for the recruitment only through direct recruitment i.e. through Staff Selection Commission and, therefore, 13 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE & CONNECTED MATTERS the regularization of the casual labourers with temporary status cannot be considered as the MTS have now been classified as Group 'C'. With all these assertions, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
6. Shri Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the applicant, while opening his arguments submitted that the applicants have completed more than 22 years in service. They were granted temporary status on 13.06.2000. The respondents cannot take work from them as casual labourers for all times to come. While placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Tiwari (Civil Appeal No. 7423-7429/2018 decided on 01.08.2018) and Ravi Verma and Others vs Union of India and Others (Civil Appeal No. 2795-2796/2018 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 33258-33259/2015 decided on 13.03.2018), learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is entitled for regularisation of his services on completion of 10 years in service.
7. Per contra Shri M.V. Rao, learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that since the applicant had not completed 10 years in service as on 10.04.2006, therefore, he cannot claim regularization in view of Umadevi (supra). Learned counsel further submitted that even the ratio of Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) cannot be applied to the case in hand as the State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15.11.2010 and, 14 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE & CONNECTED MATTERS therefore, in peculiar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered for regularization of the services of the applicants therein from the date of promulgation of the Regularization Rules.
8. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the record.
9. Indisputably, the applicant has been working as a casual labourer with the respondents department since the year 1997. He was granted temporary status with effect from 13.6.2000. Since the year 1997, he is continuing in service uninterruptedly.
10. The plea raised by Shri M.V. Rao, learned counsel representing the respondents, to the effect that the services of the applicant cannot be regularized as he has not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, in our opinion, cannot be countenanced in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In our considered view, the appointment of the applicant in the department was not illegal. It was irregular initially but later on when temporary status was conferred upon the applicant in the year 2000, he became entitled to have protection of Clause 8 of the Grant of Temporary Status Scheme, 1993 (hereinafter called as '1993 scheme'). Clause 8 of the said scheme is reproduced here as under:
"8. Procedure for filling up of Group `D' posts
(i) Two out of every three vacancies in Group `D' cadres in respective offices where the casual labourers have been working would be filled up as per extant recruitment rules and in accordance with the 15 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE & CONNECTED MATTERS instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training from amongst casual workers with temporary status. However, regular Group `D' staff rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies. In case of illiterate casual labourers or those who fail to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed for post, regularisation will be considered only against those posts in respect of which literacy or lack of minimum qualification will not be a requisite qualification. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourer."
11. In our considered view, after according the temporary status upon the applicant on 13.06.2000, it was incumbent upon the respondents to consider his case for regularization of his services against 2 out of every 3 vacancies in Group 'D' cadre. However, the said right has continuously been ignored and he has been made to suffer for years together.
12. In Ravi Verma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with almost an identical situation where the applicants therein were initially appointed as casual employees in the Income Tax Department in the year 1993-94 and they had been working continuously since then. On 30.01.2004, with respect to other similarly situated employees, temporary status was granted by the respondent department. The Respondent No. 4 therein had recommended the cases of applicants therein on 30.12.2004 for according temporary status/regularization. The same recommendation was again made on 14.6.2005. In the meantime, the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra) was pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the pronouncement of said judgment, the cases of applicants therein were again 16 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE & CONNECTED MATTERS recommended for regularization/temporary status on 01.06.2007 as their services were required for the smooth functioning of the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax. The said recommendation was further followed by recommendations dated 01.01.2008 and 31.01.2008. However, the services of the applicants therein were not regularised, though the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, UP West, Ghaziabad had regularised similarly situated 88 casual employees on 30.01.2009 and the Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Odisha had also regularised similarly situated 8 employees on 12.03.2009. On 01.06.2009, the Applicants No. 1, 2 and 3 therein were sanctioned minimum of the pay scale of Group 'D' employees with Dearness Allowance in accordance with DOPT circular dated 31.05.2004 and in terms of the order of CCIT dated 07.11.2007 and 06.12.2007 on conferring temporary status on the employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further noticed that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata has regularized 111 similarly situated casual employees on 22.09.2009 and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow has also regularised 59 similarly situated casual employees on 22.01.2010. Still further, 35 employees in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna were regularized on 20.8.2010. After taking note of all these facts and the Umadevi's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued a direction to respondents to regularize the services of the applicants therein with effect from 01.07.2006.
17 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
13. In our considered view, the case of the applicant herein is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Verma (supra). Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 53 of the judgment in Umadevi (supra) has observed that the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize, as a one time measure, the services of irregularly appointed employees who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but subsequently while finding exceptional circumstances in State of Gujarat and Others vs PWD Employees Union and Others 2013-III-LLJ- 665 (SC) and Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) directions were issued to the respondents therein to consider the cases of employees for regularization of their services.
14. Similar kind of exceptional circumstances have been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Verma (supra) wherein the employees were initially recruited in the year 1993-94 and they were granted temporary status and, while granting parity to them with their counterparts working in different zones, a direction was given to regularize their services with effect from 01.07.2006.
15. The applicant in Para 4.3 of the Original Application has made a specific assertion that similarly situated casual employees have been regularized by the respondents in other Commissionerates i.e. UP West, Ghaziabad, Bhubaneshwar, Kolkata, Lucknow and Patna. The respondents 18 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE & CONNECTED MATTERS while submitting their reply to said paragraph have sought to make a distinction between the applicant and the employees working in UP West Region, Ghaziabad by stating that the employees who were working in the said region had completed 10 years of service on 24.12.2007 and the order of regularization of their services was issued on 30.01.2009 well before the letter dated 22.07.2009 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes fixing the cut off date for reckoning the tenure of working for 10 years or more as the date of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra) i.e. 10.04.2006. So far as rest of the Commissionerates are concerned, the respondents have not even chosen to reply the assertions made in paragraph 4.3 of the Original Application.
16. From the narration of facts in paragraph 4.3 of the reply filed by the respondents, it becomes crystal clear that the counterparts of the applicant herein have been considered for regularization of their services after completion of 10 years of service as on 24.12.2007. Thus, we hold that the action of the respondents while declining regularization to applicant herein is not only arbitrary, it is discriminatory as well. The distinction sought to be made between the applicant herein and the employees who were regularized in UP West Region, Ghaziabad is highly irrational.
17. In CWP No. 27795/2013 titled as Devi Dass vs Union of India and Others, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has observed as follows:
19 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS "We are very much convinced that the petitioner has a case. It appears that the respondent had adopted unfair labour practice like a private institution employing the petitioner on a contract basis and not regularizing him for the past 26 years. We are in a welfare state. Such practice cannot be approved by Court of law and justice. The petitioner, whatever be the merit of the case, shall be regularized within one month from the date of this order."
18. A similar order was passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 24963/2014 in case titled as Sarup Singh vs Union of India and Others in which the petitioner had put in 22 years of service as a driver and had not been regularized. The orders in CWP No. 24963/2014 were subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the SLP filed by the respondents was dismissed on 29.08.2016.
19. In the conspectus of discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, all the above captioned Original Applications deserve to be allowed.
20. Accordingly, the Original Application Nos. 170/01083/2019, 170/01084/2019, 170/01085/2019, 170/01086/2019, 170/01087/2019, 170/01088/2019, 170/01089/2019, 170/01090/2019, 170/01091/2019, 170/01092/2019, 170/01093/2019, 170/01094/2019, 170/01095/2019, 170/01096/2019 are allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to consider the applicants' cases for regularization of their services from the dates they have completed 10 years in service with all consequential benefits. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of it's certified copy. 20 OA.No.170/01083/2019/CAT/BANGALORE
& CONNECTED MATTERS
21. There shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (SURESH KUMAR MONGA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/