Himachal Pradesh High Court
Union Of India & Others vs Sonu Kumari & Others on 25 June, 2024
Author: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S. Ramachandra Rao
1 2024:HHC:3930-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1395 of 2017 a/w CWP Nos.1396 & 1458 of 2017 .
Reserved on: 13.06.2024
Pronounced on: 25.06.2024
CWP No.1395 of 2017
Union of India & Others ......Petitioners
Versus
Sonu Kumari & Others ...Respondents
___________________________________________________________________________ CWP No.1396 of 2017 Union of India & Others ......Petitioners Versus Geeta Devi & Others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________________________________ CWP No.1458 of 2017 Union of India & Others ......Petitioners Versus Giani Devi & Others ...Respondents ___________________________________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?CWP No.1395 of 2017
For the petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pawan Gautam and Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocates, for respondents no.1 to 12 and 14 to 26.::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 2
Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no.13.
CWP No.1396 of 2017.
For the petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pawan Gautam and Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocates, for respondents no.1 to 4.
CWP No.1458 of 2017For the petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pawan Gautam and Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocates, for respondents no.1 to 20 and 22 to 28.
Mr. Janak Raj, Advocate vice Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent no.21.
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice.
These three Writ petitions arise out of a common order dt. 20.02.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal"), Chandigarh in O.A. nos.063/00184/2015, 063/00185/2015 & 063/00186/2015.
2) The petitioners are the Union of India, rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology and officers of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ( BSNL).
3) All the respondents had been engaged as Part Time Casual Labourers during the period 1986 to 1998 in the erstwhile Department of Telecommunications (in short "the DoT").
::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 34) The DoT had issued a Policy decision vide letter dt. 16.09.1999 to convert all Part Time Casual Labourers, who were working for four or more hours per day, into Full Time Casual Labourers.
.
5) Subsequently, another Policy decision was taken by the DoT vide letter dt.25.08.2000 to convert all Part Time Casual Labourers, who were working for less than four hours per day also into Full Time Casual Labourers.
6) Lastly, the DoT had issued another order on 29.09.2000 to regularize the services of all Casual Labourers working in the said Department, including those who had been granted temporary status w.e.f.
01.10.2000.
7) The BSNL had been incorporated pursuant to a Policy decision of the Government of India, contained in the National Telecom Policy, 1999, to hive off its business of providing telecom services and operating the same through a corporate entity and that the BSNL started functioning w.e.f. 01.10.2000. All the assets and liabilities of the DoT stood transferred to the BSNL.
8) It is not in dispute that after the creation of the BSNL, all the respondents were converted into Full Time Casual Labourers through orders issued individually in the year 2000 to 2003 pursuant to the approval of the competent authority in compliance with letter dt.
::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 425.08.2000 of the DoT, endorsed vide another letter of November, 2000 with immediate effect.
9) The respondents, having thus been converted into Full Time Casual .
Labourers, sought regularization of their services w.e.f. 01.10.2000 from the competent authority in BSNL, but their requests were not accepted in spite of their sending a Legal Notice dt. 03.04.2014.
10) They then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. nos.063/00061/2015, 063/00062/2015 & 063/00063/2015.
11) The Tribunal disposed of the same through a common order passed on 09.04.2015 directing the petitioners to take a view on the said Legal Notice dt. 03.04.2014.
The rejection order passed by the respondent no.4
12) Thereafter, the respondent No.4 (BSNL) rejected their claim through impugned orders dt. 19.06.2015, 18.06.2015 & 24.06.2015, respectively.
13) He held that the respondents, who are engaged on Part Time Casual Labourers, have been converted into Full Time Casual Labourers pursuant to a Policy decision taken by the Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi in its letter dt. 25.08.2000; but after coming into existence of the BSNL from 1.1.2000, no guidelines were issued regarding regularization of left-out Casual Labourers of the ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 5 erstwhile Department of Telecommunications, who were later on brought on the rolls of the BSNL.
14) He reiterated that the initial engagement of the respondents was of .
casual nature without following any regular method of recruitment and dehors the statutory rules and the same has to be treated as unconstitutional and not legally permissible.
15) According to him, after the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and Others 1, rules of regularization of casual labourers as also rules for conversion of part time casual labourers into full time casual labourers, were rendered legally untenable.
16) He stated that as on the date of passing of his order, BSNL had no policy for regularizing casual labourers.
17) Reliance is also placed on decision in BSNL v. Teja Singh2 rendered on 16.1.2009.
The OAs filed by respondents
18) These orders have been impugned in the O.A. nos.063/00184/2015, 063/00185/2015 & 063/00186/2015 respectively by respondents again before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
19) The respondents contended in the respective O.As. that the petitioners' actions in not regularizing their services as Regular 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2020) 19 SCC 811 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 6 Mazdoors (RMs), is illegal, arbitrary & discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
20) They also alleged that the competent authority to pass a speaking .
order in view of the order dt. 09.04.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, was appellant no.2, but appellant no.4 had passed the office order on 19.06.2015 rejecting their claim for regularization of services from Full Time Casual Labourers alongwith consequential benefits.
21) They contended that in other Circles, the BSNL had regularized services of Full Time Casual Labourers, but the respondents had been discriminated against, though there were many posts available in the H.P. Telecom Circle as well.
22) They placed reliance on the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, against the petitioners in O.A. no.778 of 2009 dt. 05.04.2010, where the said Tribunal issued directions to regularize services of the applicant therein as Mazdoor w.e.f. 29.09.2000 with all consequential benefits, but without back wages.
23) They also contended that they had completed 10 years of service and their claim for regularization is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi ( 1 supra).
::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 724) According to them, the work which they are performing was of perennial nature and similar to that performed by the regular employees; that they are in the lowest strata of the society; that the .
power to create posts was exclusively with the petitioners; and the petitioners cannot extract the work from persons like the respondents for decades, and then turn back to tell the respondents and the Court that they cannot regularize their services since their appointments were not made against any sanctioned posts.
25) They alleged that the creation of a cadre and sanctioning of posts for a cadre are matters exclusively within the authority of the petitioners, that the petitioners had been trying to take advantage of their own wrong by not choosing to create a cadre or to make appointments of persons to the cadre and they are instead utilizing services of persons like the respondents for long periods on nominal wages without making available any other service benefits which are available to it's other employees who are discharging functions similar to that being discharged by the respondents.
26) The petitioners refuted the claim of the respondents.
27) They contended that although the respondents were working as Full Time Labourers, they are not entitled to regularization, in view of the fact that after the year 2000, the BSNL had come into existence, and ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 8 as a sequel thereof, the instructions issued by the erstwhile DoT became redundant for the purpose of regularization.
28) It was however acknowledged that the respondents had been .
converted into Full Time Labourers on various dates between 2001 to 2003, but it was mentioned that they will not be entitled to grant of temporary status or for regularization of their services.
29) They also placed reliance on the decision in Uma Devi's case ( 1 supra) and contended that there is no regularization Policy in the BSNL, though it was admitted that they were all absorbed employees of BSNL.
The impugned common order of the CAT
30) The Tribunal, by a common order passed on 20.02.2017, allowed the O.As. and set-aside the impugned orders. It directed the petitioners to regularize the services of the respondents pursuant to the letters dt.
25.08.2000 and 29.09.2000 against vacant posts within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of its order.
31) The Tribunal firstly noted that the BSNL had been incorporated pursuant to a Policy decision of the Government of India, contained in the National Telecom Policy, 1999, to hive off its business of providing telecom services and operating the same through a corporate entity and that the BSNL started functioning w.e.f.
01.10.2000.
::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 9It noted that as per the terms of the Agreement, all the assets and liabilities of the DoT stood transferred to the BSNL and, therefore, the BSNL cannot escape from fulfillment of tis obligations .
and responsibilities of regularizing the applicants.
It relied on a decision rendered by it in Sh. Vikas Tomar vs. CGM and Others3, wherein, the Tribunal had held that once all assets and liabilities were transferred from the DoT to the BSNL, then it cannot possibly be said that the letters granting regularization of services issued by the DoT, would become redundant.
32) Secondly it referred to the actions of the DoT in not only converting the respondents, who were Part Time Casual Labourers into Full Time Casual Labouers from time to time, but also the fact that the respondents had issued an office order on 29.09.2000 for regularization of services of the respondents promising to regularize all of them.
It held that the case of all the respondents would fall within Clause-4 of the said order dt. 29.09.2000, which postulated that services of all the Part Time Casual Laourers, who were working for less-than four hours for a day and were converted into Full Time Casual Labourers through letter dt. 25.08.2000, would be regularized.
3order dt. 26.10.2015 in Case no.063/00157/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 10 It also referred to a Vacancy Position Chart (Annexure A-
14/A-15), indicating that 590 posts of Regular Mazdoors were still lying vacant and held that once the case of the respondents squarely .
falls within the ambit of Clause-4 of the order dt. 29.09.2000 and the posts are vacant, the respondents' services are liable to be regularized.
33) It also considered the decision in Uma Devi's case ( 1 supra) and held that the petitioners had permitted the respondents to continue for many years even after the judgment was rendered in Uma Devi's case in the year 2006 and they are therefore estopped from contending that the initial appointment of the respondents was not legal.
34) The Tribunal also noted that the petitioners acknowledged that the services of similarly situated category of Casual Labourers, who are working in the Department, were regularized by the competent authority and this indicated that the petitioners were adopting pick & choose Policy. It held that the respondents were also legally entitled to the same treatment on the basis of parity in view of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
The present Writ Petitions
35) Assailing the same, these Writ petitions have been filed.
36) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners sought to contend that the common order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and that the petitioners were right in refusing to regularize ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 11 the services of the respondents. He also contended that the reasons assigned in the common order refusing regularization are valid and could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal.
.
37) According to the Senior Counsel for the petitioners, though the respondents, who are engaged on Part Time Casual Labourers have been converted into Full Time Casual Labourers pursuant to a Policy decision taken by the Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi in its letter dt. 25.08.2000, the respondents cannot seek regularization in the BSNL on the basis of a Policy decision taken by the Department of Telecommunications on 29.09.2000. He also contended that after coming into existence of the BSNL w.e.f.
01.10.2000, no guidelines were issued regarding regularization of left-
out Casual Labourers of the erstwhile Department of Telecommunications, who were later on brought on the roles of the BSNL. He reiterated that the initial engagement of the respondents was of casual nature without following any regular method of recruitment and the same has to be treated as unconstitutional.
38) It is contended that regularization of Casual Labourers engaged dehors the statutory rules, is not legally permissible.
39) The counsel for the respondents supported the common judgment passed by the Tribunal.
::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 12Consideration by the Court.
40) From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the respondents had been engaged as Part Time Casual Labourers during the period 1986 to .
1998 by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).
41) The DoT had issued a Policy decision on 16.09.1999 and 25.08.2000 to covert all Part Time Casual Labourers into Full Time Casual Labourers.
42) It had also issued another order on 29.09.2000 to regularize the services of all Casual Labourers working in the said Department, including those who have been granted temporary status w.e.f.
01.10.2000.
43) It is not in dispute that after the BSNL, a Government of India Enterprise, which came into existence on 01.10.2000, the respondents who had been employed in the DOT, were converted into Full Time Casual Labourers, implementing the decision taken on 25.08.2000 by the Department of Telecommunications to covert Part Time Casual Labourers into Full Time Casual Labourers.
The decision in Masan Ali of the Allahabad High Court
44) In Masan Ali v. Union of India4, a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court considered a case on identical facts of persons 4 MANU/UP/1489/2007 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 13 seeking regularization in the BSNL based on the order dt.29.9.2000 issued by the DoT.
45) In that case too each one of petitioners had been performing and .
discharging duties as part time casual labourers/sweepers.
46) The Allahabad High Court noted that in the year 2000, the BSNL, a Government of India Enterprises came into existence, and that as per the averments mentioned in paragraph 3 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed in that case, the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. adopted directives contained in letter dt. 29.09.2000. (This fact has been suppressed by the petitioners in these W.Ps before the CAT and also before this Court)
47) The Allahabad High Court also noted that in respect of absorption of Group "C" and "D" staff working in B.S.N.L., Employees Federation had been pressing upon for absorption of casual labourers, as such preliminary meeting had been held with three Federations and BSNL on 09.11.2000, that it empowered the Management to negotiate with the Unions, pursuant to which meeting was held with three Federations on 02.01.2001 and following proposals were approved:
"1. ...
2....
3. ABSORPTION OF CASUAL LABOURS Orders have been issued by DoT for regularising Ayas and all casual labourers including part time casual labourers. Left out cases, if any will ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 14 be settled by BSNL in accordance with order No. 269-94/98-STN dated 29.9.2000.
4. OPTION OF STAFF FOR ABSORPTION IN BSNL .
The BSNL will absorb the optees on as is where is basis. A list of optees will be made available to the three federations/unions.
5-11...." ( emphasis supplied) The above modalities had been worked out in consultation with the three federations for termination of the deemed deputation status in BSNL and the parties have put their signatures in token of their consent and agreement on 02.01.2001. (The existence of such a settlement between the employees and the management of the BSNL paving the way for their regularization of full time casual labourers has also not been disclosed by the petitioners either before the CAT or before this Court).
48) The Allahabad High Court in it's decision dt.16.11.2007 noted that though the policy decision had been taken on 23.1.2006 for undertaking the exercise of extending the benefit of regularization, before such exercise could be undertaken, the decision in Uma devi ( 1 Supra) had come, and the claim of petitioners therein had been rejected solely on the ground that after pronouncement of judgment in the case of Uma Devi (1 supra), regularization could not have been made.::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 15
49) The Allahabad High Court then noted that the Supreme Court in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey and Ors. 5 has taken the view that often Uma Devi's case (1 supra) is being applied .
by the Courts mechanically without seeing the facts of particular case as a little difference in facts or even one additional fact may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision, and that the Uma Devi's case ( 1 supra) cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case as a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi's case ( 1 supra) inapplicable to the facts of the case.
50) The Allahabad High Court then held:
"Petitioners, who are from the lowest strata of the society; initially were inducted as part time casual labourers for performing and discharging duty and function of sweeper and then their status was converted into full time casual labourers and thereafter, they have been absorbed as regular majdoors. In the case of Uma Devi (1 supra), there was no statutory agreement in between the Employees Union and the authorities and powers of courts were being looked into as to whether courts have authority to issue direction for regularisation, qua incumbents, whose appointment is dehors the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Here, in the present case undisputed position is that on 29.09.2000 one time policy decision was taken by the Department of Telecom Service for converting part time casual labourers into full time casual labourers and thereafter they were to be adjusted as regular majdoors.
Not only this, after incorporation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. in connection with absorption of Group 'C and Group 'D' staff, primarily meetings were held with three Federations and after long negotiation 5 (2007) 11 SCC 92 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 16 with unions, it was categorically agreed on 02.01.2001 for implementation of the Standing Orders of the Industrial Employment Act, 1946 and BSNL Service Rules were to be finalized after discussion with the recognised union formed by the optees of BSNL and the Standing .
Orders of the Industrial Employment Act, 1946. Further it was also categorically agreed for absorption of casual labourers in accordance with the order dated 29.09.2000.
This particular agreement dated 02.01.2001 entered into between three Federations and BSNL in connection with absorption of Group 'C and Group 'D' staff was there and consequent to the same decision had been taken to absorb. One time policy decision was taken in this regard after BSNL had come into existence taking into account earlier agreement and in between the employer and employees union once such an agreement has taken place, then it was binding and the benefit which has been conferred for regularization was strictly in consonance with the said agreement, which has statutory flavour in terms of Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In the case of Uma Devi ( 1 supra), such a situation was not there, as there was no statutory agreement in between the workers' union and employer in question, as such this is the most distinguishing feature available in the present case, as such the principle laid down in the case of Uma Devi could not have been invoked mechanically in the present case, as here regular status has been accorded on account of settlement made by BSNL and the three employees Federations, which was finalized on 02.01.2001.
Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 clearly provides that settlement arrived at by means of agreement in between employer and the workers otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement. The respondents do not dispute that there is agreement and it is binding on them. The only reason which has come, is that on account of Uma Devi's case no regularization is feasible.
The fact of the agreement entered into inter se Employees union and BSNL has been totally ignored by the authorities while proceeding to ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 17 cancel the regularization, whereas said agreement has statutory effect and was binding inter se parties in terms of Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as one time measure once decision has been taken for extending the benefit of regularization, the ratio of law .
laid down in the case of Uma Devi (supra) could not have been applied mechanically, as has been done in the present case." ( emphasis supplied)
51) The Allahabad High Court concluded that the agreement arrived at in between workers union and the authorities has binding force, that said agreement is in the form of a package, that till date of his judgment it has not been cancelled, and based on the same, policy decision has been taken, which forms terms and conditions of absorption of Group 'C and 'D' employees, and petitioners have been offered the status of substantive majdoors, as per the same, and so the same cannot be faulted.
52) It also rejected the plea of BSNL that petitioners therein have not been appointed in regular manner as they were never registered with the Employment Exchange. The said Court noted that at no point of time vacancies in question had ever been advertised when petitioners had been appointed and entire emphasis is that petitioners have not got themselves registered with the Employment Exchange, as such they cannot be considered for being appointed on regular basis. It held that provisions of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 18 Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 contain exemption in section 3 thereof to "any employment to do unskilled work", and since sweepers are performing unskilled work, they were exempted from being .
registered with the Employment exchange.
53) The Allahabad High Court thus quashed the orders passed by BSNL cancelling orders of regularization passed in favor of petitioners before it.
54) We approve the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Masan Ali and others ( 4 supra) in all respects.
55) Before this Court, the petitioners suppressed the fact that:
(a) the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. adopted directives contained in letter dt. 29.09.2000 ( see para 47 supra)
(b) The settlement under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act between BSNL and it's employees providing for regularization of full time casual labourers (see para 48 supra).
56) These circumstances show that their plea based on decision in Uma Devi ( 1 supra) is unsustainable as in the case of Masan Ali ( 4 supra).
57) There is no dispute that the respondents had worked for 10 years or more without the benefit or protection of any interim order of any Court or Tribunal in the Department of Telecommunications prior to their conversion as Full Time Casual Labourers in the BSNL on the respective dates. Admittedly, a finding of fact was also recorded by ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 19 the Tribunal that 590 posts of Regular Mazdoors (RMs) in the BSNL were lying vacant. Obviously the respondents were employed to work against the said posts only.
.
58) As noted above, The Tribunal also noted that the petitioners acknowledged that the services of similarly situated category of Casual Labourers, who are working in the Department, were regularized by the competent authority and this indicated that the petitioners were adopting pick & choose Policy. It held that the respondents were also legally entitled to the same treatment on the basis of parity in view of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. We agree with the Tribunal in that regard.
59) No reason is assigned by the petitioners why, if such large number of posts of Mazdoors were available, the Department of Telecommunications, from 1986, did not do a regular process of recruitment and continued to engage the services of the respondents till 01.10.2000, i.e. for almost 14 years.
60) The BSNL also has not explained why after the decision was rendered in Uma Devi (1 Supra) in 2006 which mandated regular process of recruitment of existing vacancies every year, it chose to continue respondents on casual basis even thereafter without following the said decision.
::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 2061) The petitioners cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong in not taking up any regular method of recruitment all these years and then refusing to regularize the services of the respondents .
on the said plea.
62) Also, what were the qualifications prescribed for appointments as Mazdoors and in what way the respondents can be said to be not possessing those qualifications, was not pleaded either in the Writ petition or before the Tribunal.
63) The fact that the respondents had been engaged for such a long time, indicates that there was enough work of perennial nature available in both DoT and subsequent to 01.10.2000 in the BSNL as well. When such workload exists, engaging daily wagers and not giving them the benefit of Pay Scale and other service benefits, would clearly amount to their exploitation, since the respondents' social and economic conditions would not permit them to bargain with the petitioners.
64) A Three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil vs. The State of Maharastra & Others 6, following its earlier decisions in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner vs. Mohan Lal7, Dilbagh Rai Jarry vs. Union of India & Others 8, has held that the State should act as a model litigant; and that it should not 6 (2020) 19 SCC 241 7 (2010) 1 SCC 512 8 (1974) 3 SCC 554 ::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS 21 put-forth false, frivolous, vexatious & technical but unjust contentions to obstruct the path of justice; and that the State's interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a .
technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity.
65) For all the aforesaid reasons, we are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunal contained in the common impugned order, and we see no reason to interfere with the same.
66) Accordingly, the Writ petitions fail and are dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- each to be paid by the petitioners to each of the respondents within 4 weeks.
67) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao)
Chief Justice
(Satyen Vaidya)
June 25, 2024 Judge
(Yashwant)
::: Downloaded on - 25/06/2024 20:31:04 :::CIS