Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.J. Babu vs Cpo (2008) 1 Scc (L & S) on 20 October, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH Original Application No. 392 of 2008 Monday, this the 20th day of October, 2008 CO R A M: HON'BLE DR. K B S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Ms. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER K.J. Babu, S/o.K.A. Joseph, Working as Painter Grade I, Office of the Senior Section Engineer/ Electrical (Power), Southern Railway, Palakkad. Residing at 'Grace Villa', Thomas Nagar, Kakkani (P.O.), Kallekulangara, Palakkad : 691 009. ... Applicant. (By Advocate Mrs. K. Girija) v er s u s 1. Union of India representd by The General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town P.O., Chennai : 600 003 2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palakkad Division, Palakkad. 3. The Senior Section Engineer/ Electrical (Power), Southern Railway, Palakkad Division, Palakkad. 4. The Divisional Electrical Engineer/General, Southern Railway, Palakkad Division, Palakkad. .... Respondents. (By Advocate Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil) The Original Application having been heard on 13.10.08, this Tribunal on 20.10.08 delivered the following: O R D E R
HON'BLE DR. K B S RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicant is aggrieved by order dated 26th May 2008(Annexure A-1) whereby he has been shifted from the post of Painter (pay scale Rs 4,500 6000) to Tech. II (Pay scale Rs 4,000 6000). Reason for such shifting as stated by the respondents is that the former post (i.e. painter) is one of ex-cadre post and the applicant has to be back to his parent cadre in view of the policy that one should not stay in ex cadre posts for more than four years. The contention of the applicant is that the post he has been holding is one of cadre post as has been authenticated by a finding of the Labour Court, duly upheld by the High Court as early as in 1996.
2. The facts capsule:
(a) The applicant was engaged on daily wage basis since 10-05-1972, followed by temporary status. He has all along been doing the job of painter and in no other capacity. By Office Order No. 38/81 dated 1806-
1981 (Annexure A-2), he was promoted as painter/Pumps in the scale of Rs 260-400. Later on by order dated 05-05-1986 he was promoted as ainter Gr. II in the scale of pay of Rs 330 480 w.e.f. 01-04-1983, vide Annexure A-3. He saw a further promotion through Annexure A-4 order dated 06-04-1987 to the grade of Painter HS Gr. I in the scale of pay of Rs 1320 2040.
(b) In 1984, the applicant approached the labour court in respect of the post he was holding. The point as contained in Annexure A-5 of the O.A dated 26-10-1985 of the Labour Court; Kozhikode in CPC 3/84 is regarding the post to which the petitioner was employed. According to the respondents he was a Khalasi whereas according to the applicant he was a painter and had been working as such from 10-05-1972 onwards. The finding of the Labour Court was to the following extent:
".... In order to prove that he was a Painter, reliance is placed on Exts. P2 and P3 which are photostat copies of the service certificates issued to him and the identity card. I had compared these copies with the originals produced by the petitioner and are found to be correct copies. As per Ext. P2, the Electrical Chargeman of Southern Railway at Olavakkot has certified that the petitioner was a Painter in the service of the Railway on daily rate basis from 10.05.1972 to 05.02.1976. The identity card Ext. P3 describes petitioner as a Painter. It is, therefore, futile for respondents to contend that the petitioner was taken as a Khalasi and that he was promoted as a Painter only much later. Moreover, in the memorandum issued by the Divisional Office of the Personnel Branch of Southern Railway at Palghat on 30.05.1985, a copy of which is marked as Ext. P1, petitioner is described as a Painter and the date of temporary status granted in the scale 196-232 is shown 10.11.1972. There is thus sufficient material on record to show that petitioner was employed as a Painter and that he has got temporary status on and from 10.11.1972. As per Exts. P1, petitioner was granted revised higher scale 260-400 from 10.11.1972 to 5.2.1976. Though this order has been issued as late 1985, petitioner can rely on the same in order to substantiate his claim....."
(c) The respondents had taken up the matter to the Honble High Court in OP No. 5572 of 1986 L and the High Court has, vide Annexure A-6 Judgment dated 31st July, 1986 held as under:
"6. It can thus be seen that even on the showing of the Railways the petitioner has been working as a painter on daily rate basis from 10-05-1972 to 5-2-1976. It therefore follows that the contention raised by the petitioner that the first respondent was working only as Khalasi till 1981 is without any substance. That is so, is well established by Ex. P7, the memorandum issued by the Divisional Office of the Personnel Branch of the Southern Railway at Palghat dated 30-05-1985. In Ext. P7, the petitioner has been described as painter and the date granting temporary status in the scale of Rs 196-232 is shown as 10-11-1972.
7. . The labour court, according to me has rightly held that the first respondent has been treated by the Railway authorities as a painter right from the inception and therefore, is entitled to the benefits that post would bring in to the holder of that post."
(d) The respondents have, however, treated the applicant as belonging to electrical wing and had thus, treating the applicants service as painter only as in an ex-cadre post, passed the impugned order at Annexure I. The result of this order is that the applicant is being pushed down to a lower pay scale on the one hand and is compelled to function as Electrician, to which he has no exposure as right from the beginning he has been discharging the function only as a painter.
(e) The applicant has filed his representation dated 26-05-2008 followed by a reminder dated 04-06-2008 (Annexure A-7). As there has been no joy, the applicant has moved this O.A. praying for the following relief(s):
(i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A-1 and quash the same to the extent it relates the applicant.
(ii) Declare that the post of Painter is to be treated as a cadre post and that the applicant is entitled to continue to draw in his present post till the date of his superannuation.
(iii) Declare that the applicant is entitled to have his pay protected and further to direct the respondents to continue to draw the applicant's pay as if Annexure A1 has not been issued at all.
3. Respondents have contested the O.A. According to them, the applicant was engaged as Substitute Electrical Khalasi under Electrical Chargeman, Pumps, Palghat on pay of Rs 196/-in the scale of Rs 196-232 w.e.f. 06-02-1976 in continuation of his Extra Labour Service/Casual Labour service. Annexure R-1, copy of the relevant page in the service Book refers. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 06-06-1976 and later was screened and absorbed in the regular post of Khalasi in scale of Rs 196-232 w.e.f. 24-11-1977. He passed the trade test for Basic Brush Hand and was promoted as Helper I/Basic Brush Hand in the scale of Rs 210 290 on pay of Rs 214/-. Later on his date of temporary status was advanced to 10-11-1972 from 06-06-1976 and his pay was re-fixed accordingly from 01-01-1975 upto 11-06-1981. It was also contended by the respondents that while working as Brush Hand, the applicant was promoted to the ex cadre post of Painter in the scale of Rs 260 400, w.e.f. 22-06-1981, as is evident from office order 37/98 (elec) dated 10-09-1984, vide Annexure R-2 entry in the Service Book. It has also been contended that while functioning as painter in the ex-cadre post, the applicant was promoted in his parent cadre as Technician Gr. II w.e.f. 04-02-1993 and as Technician Gr. II in scale of Rs 4000 6000 w.e.f. 21-07-1999 but was retained as painter on ex cadre basis. Again, he was promoted as Technician Gr. I Pump in the scale of Rs 4,500 7000 by order dated 02-04-2007 but he declined promotion and hence was debarred from promotion for one year w.e.f. 2-4-2007 and was allowed to continue as Technician Gr. II by O.O. dated 03-02-2008, vide Annexure R-3. As per the C.P.O, letter dated 15-10-2001 vide Annexure R-4, those working against ex-cadre post are to be repatriated to the parent cadre on completion of 4 years in the ex cadre post. Cooling period in the parent cadre is 2 years. Even the Trade Unions have emphasized the same, vide Annexure R-5 and R-6 and vide Annexure R-7 order dated 06-05-2008 the applicant along with certain others posted in the ex-cadre posts have been repatriated to the parent cadre. List of ex cadre posts has been given in Annexure R-8. Service Book contains the entries in regard to the ex cadre post.
4. Applicant has filed the rejoinder in which he has stated that without prejudice to his contention and claim that the post of painter he held was not an ex cadre post but a cadre post, the applicant submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in L. Parameshwaran vs CPO (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 878 he is entitled to pay protection. As regards the contention of the respondents that the applicant was serving as electrical Khalasi and was later on posted as Brush Hand, followed by promotion as painter, the applicant contended that such a contention was earlier taken before the Labour Court and later on in High Court but this stand of the respondents has been rejected by the Court and the said judgment has become final. As regards the entry in service book, according to the applicant the same are fabricated and Annexure A-2 order promoting the applicant as a painter does not reflect that the post is an ex- cadre post. It has also been contended that the fact that the applicant had been granted further promotions in the line of Painter, is suggestive of the fact that the post of painter is not an ex cadre post. Again, if it were a cadre post, obviously invoking the provisions of 2001 order (Annexure R-4) respondents would have repatriated the applicant long back, which they did not do. In any event, after the labour court has rendered the finding which stands upheld by the High Court that right from inception the applicant has been functioning as painter only, there is no question of the post of painter which the applicant has been holding as ex cadre post. Annexure A-10 casual labour card would vouch for the fact that the applicant has, right from inception, been engaged only in the job of painting. The post of painter has been in existence for quite some time and earlier, it was held by one Sri Jermaiah, who entered the service as a painter and was permitted to retire in the same post. It has also been stated that the move of the respondent at this juncture was due to the pressure exerted by the Trade Unions. Annexure A-9 is the Boards order relating to ex cadre post is specific relating to the way an ex cadre post has to be declared and filled and at no point of time such a procedure was followed in the case of the applicant.
5. In their additional reply, respondents have stated that as early as September, 1976, vide Annexure 8-A, the fact that the applicant was appointed only as Substitute Khalasi has been established. Subsequently, all the further promotions, be it in the line of ex cadre post or otherwise have all been reflected in the service book; that the service register is a clear proof of the total service of the employees rendered in the Railways. The service register is opened at the time of an employees entry in the service and all the entries are acknowledged by due signature of the employee concerned. The applicant himself has reflected his designation as Electrical Khalasi in 1977 when he applied for passport, vide Annexure R-9 and that in view of the refusal to take over the post of Technician Gr. I the applicant had been appointed as Technician Gr. II in the scale of pay of Rs 4,000 6000 vide Annexure R-10. The applicant has clearly accepted this post, which is evidenced from his own application for final withdrawal from provident fund, in which in respect of designation held, he has indicated Tech Gr. II/Palghat.
6. The applicant on his part filed a number of documents vide Annexure A-13 to A-22 as under:
(a) Annexure A-13: Service certificate dated 10-11-1977, A-15 letter dated 10-07-1987, Annexure A-16 dated 02-08-1991, A-17 certificate of Merit, Annexure A-18 I. Card, Annexure A-19 privilege pass dated 28-05-2008, Annexure A-20 Railway Medical Attendance I. Card dated 28-03-2008, evidencing the fact that the applicant had been functioning as Painter from 10-05-1972 to 05-02-1976.
(b) Annexure A-14: Memorandum dated 05-2-1985 evidencing the grant of temporary status w.e.f. 1972 itself.
(c) Annexure A-21 and A-22 Copy of the Indian Railway Administration and Finance 1991 edition and extract regarding General Conditions of service, wherein the correct procedure in respect of maintenance of service records/personal file has been specified.
7. On their part, respondents have filed additional documents as hereunder:
(a) Order dated 4-2-1993 (Annexure R 12) relating to promotion of the applicants in the parent cadre along with various others.
(b) Order dated 29-06-1993 (Annexure R 13, promoting the applicant as ELF(P) III in the scale of Rs 950 1500 but retaining him as painter in the scale of Rs 1320 2040.
(c) Office Order No. 18/99 reflecting further promotion to the grade of Tech. Gr. II,
(d) Order dated Nil Sep. 2002 calling for volunteers for manning the ex cadre posts which inter alia include the post of painter.
8. The applicant has filed additional rejoinder to counter the additional reply filed by the respondents.
9. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the points and contentions raised by the respondents have all been earlier agitated against the applicant before the Labour Court and the High Court. This is clear from the counter filed by them before the Labour Court, which has been extracted in Annexure A-6 judgment of the High Court. Attention was drawn to the fact that while working as Khalasi the applicant passed the trade test for basic painter in scale of Rs 210 290 and was promoted to work as basic painter on pay of Rs 214/with effect from 11-06-1980. Again in June 81 he passed the trade test for painter skilled and was promoted to that post on pay of Rs 260/-in scale of Rs 260 400 with effect from 22-06-81. Counsel for the applicant further referred to the service book to hammer home the point that the service book has not at all been maintained in the manner as specified in Annexure A-21 manual and the interpolations made, especially the alleged fact that the post of painter is an ex-cadre post have all been afterthoughts, presumably made after the filing of the O.A. There is no reference in the service records to any fact of the applicant having been promoted in the parent cadre. It has been assertively argued by the counsel for the applicant that in so far as the character of the service of the applicant as painter, the same has reached finality when the judgment of the High Court has been passed. As the procedure laid down for characterizing a post as an Ex-cadre post has not been followed at all in this case, and as the respondents have not claimed earlier that the post is ex-cadre, they cannot now contend that the applicant has been holding an ex cadre post. Right from inception the applicant has been functioning as Painter only. It has also been contended that in any event, the applicant having drawn higher pay in the higher pay scale makes him entitled to protection of pay on the lines as held by the Apex Court in the case of L. Parameshwaran (supra).
10. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant having participated in the trade test for Electrician Gr. II and I, is fully aware that the post of painter he holds is only an ex cadre post.
11. Arguments were heard and documents perused. Service records have also been perused.
12. First as to the maintenance of the Service Book/personal file. It is seen that recording of important occurrences does not take place as and when such occurrences are made. Authentication by the Attesting officer is not reflecting the dates. The events are also not sequentially written, much less serially numbered and scope for interpolation or tampering has been made liberal! The crucial point in this case is whether the post of painter in which the applicant was appointed is a cadre or ex cadre post. Service register shows that the applicant had qualified the trade test on Basic Brush hand in June 1980. He was promoted as Basic Brush hand in the scale of Rs 210 290 on pay of Rs 214/-and posted to RD/PGT on 11-06-1980. Against this entry there is no indication that the applicant had been posted against an ex cadre post. Again, on his passing the Trade Test on BELF/TL he was promoted with retrospective effect from 22-06-1981 to the post of Painter in the scale of pay of Rs 260 400 and pay fixed at Rs. 260/-. Here again, there is no sign of the post being treated as ex cadre post. Two orders have been passed, one relating to grant of temporary status and the other passing of Office Order No. 37/84. Former is dated January, 86, while the latter is dated 10-09-1984. Obviously, while making entries, the chronological sequences have to be followed. In fact immediately on receipt of a particular order, the same should figure in the service register. From that point of view, orders received earlier would figure in earlier in the service book, and orders received subsequently (though the same may be in respect of an earlier incident), the same shall find place in the service register first. This has not been practised. The word Painter Ex cadre, for the first time written in page 5 of the Service Register and this entry of 1984 is preceded by another entry of 1986! In volume II, while extracting the last portion of the previous volume, there is no mention of office order No. 37/84, while certain entries prior to and posterior have figured in. Counsel for the applicant took us through rules relating to maintenance of service register. There appears no inkling that while filling up the Service register, the procedure prescribed has ever been followed. All these go to show a sorry state of affairs in the maintenance of service books. Under these circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the applicant that certain entries have been interpolated cannot be brushed aside. It is high time that respondents, in their own interest, and to ensure that litigations on account of such poor maintenance of service records are kept to the minimum, undertake an exercise of verification of all service records of all the employees in a phased manner, get the signatures of such employees in token of having understood the entries made in the service register.
13. In so far as the case of the applicant is concerned, save an entry made as late as in 1986 to show that the applicant had been posted in an ex cadre post, there is no other entry, which spells out as such. In fact, on three occasions prior to the above entry recorded in page 5, the post held by the applicant as painter has been clearly spelt out but without the qualifying word, ex-cadre. Nor was it a case of the Respondents before the Labour Court/High Court that the applicant was functioning only in an ex-cadre post as painter. On the contrary, the casual labour card, which finds place in the personal file, goes to show that right from inception, the applicant had been functioning only as painter. That period commences from 10-05-1972. This entry matches with the service certificate issued by the Electrical Charge-man Olavakkot, vide Annexure A-13. Again, this goes in tandem with the findings of the Labour Court, which stated, "It is therefore, futile for respondents to contend that the petitioner was taken as a Khalasi and that he was promoted as a painter only much later."This finding has been endorsed by the High Court when it stated, "It can thus be seen that even on the showing of the Railways, the petitioner has been working as a painter on daily rate basis from 10-05-1972 to 5-2-1976." Of course, the above findings would go to show that the applicant has right from the beginning been functioning as painter. But the court did not undertake the exercise of whether the post of painter was an ex-cadre post. Possible that the applicant had been functioning right from the beginning as painter, but the post is ex-cadre post. For this purpose, the onus lies on the respondents to substantiate their contention that the post is an ex cadre post. Save the lone entry, on the basis of Office Order 37/84 in the service register, no other order refers to the initial posting of the applicant as painter against an ex cadre post.
14. The applicant still continue to be functioning as painter and thus, right from the beginning, he has no exposure to the electrical faculty. If he is now asked to perform the duties of electrician grade II or I, with no experience he would prove to be a misfit and his functioning as Technician/Electrician would endanger the lives of others too.
15. Thus, from whichever angle the case is viewed, there is absolutely no scope of the applicant being treated as ex cadre post of painter.
16. Respondents contended that the applicant having refused to join as technician Gr. I, he has been pushed to the grade of Tech. Gr. II for one year and posted. His refusal was not on any other score but only on the ground that he has all along been working as a painter. Thus, the respondents having allowed to function as Painter right from 1972, even when they had correspondingly promoted him in the electrical wing, as the applicant has been left with only four years of service, interest of justice would also warrant that the applicant is allowed to continue in that post only. In any event, in so far as pay is concerned, be it ex-cadre post or other wise, in the event of repatriation, the pay of the individual has to be protected. In this regard, the decisions of the Apex Court in the following cases are relevant:
(a) In Inder Pal Yadavs case (2005) 11 SCC 301, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"6. However, while the petitioners cannot be granted the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition, namely, that they should not be reverted to a lower post or that they should be treated as having been promoted by reason of their promotion in the projects, nevertheless, we wish to protect the petitioners against some of the anomalies which may arise, if the petitioners are directed to join their parent cadre or other project, in future. It cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners have passed trade tests to achieve the promotional level in a particular project. Therefore, if the petitioners are posted back to the same project they shall be entitled to the same pay as their contemporaries unless the posts held by such contemporary employees at the time of such reposting of the petitioners is based on selection.
7. Additionally, while it is open to the Railway Administration to utilise the services of the petitioners in the open line, they must, for the purpose of determining efficiency and fitment take into account the trade tests which may have been passed by the petitioners as well as the length of service rendered by the petitioners in the several projects subsequent to their regular appointment."
(b) In the case of Bhadei Rai v. Union of India, (2005) 11 SCC 298, the Apex Court has held as under: "
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find that claim of the appellant deserves to be partly allowed on the basis of judgments of this Court in a somewhat similar situation in the case of Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India.
10. In the case of the present appellant, the aforesaid directions squarely apply. The appellant had to undergo a screening test in the year 1995 and in the result declared in 1997, the appellant had qualified. A long period of twenty years has been spent by the appellant on a higher post of Rigger in Group C post. In such circumstances, he is legitimately entitled to the relief of pay protection and consideration of his case for regular appointment to Group C post on the basis of his long service in Group C post.
11. Relying, therefore, on the decision of this Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav the present appeal is partly allowed by modifying the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and of the High Court. It is directed that the appellants pay which he was last drawing on the date of his repatriation from Group C post to Group D post, shall be protected. It is further directed that the appellant shall be considered for promotion to Group C post in his turn with others, with due regard to the fact of his having passed the screening test and his work and performance for long twenty years on the post of Rigger in Group C.
12. The appeal, thus, succeeds to the extent indicated above. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs."
(c) In a symphonic tone, the Apex Court had in the case of Badri Prasad v. Union of India, (2005) 11 SCC 304, has held as under:
11. It is not disputed that the appellants were made to work on the post of Storeman-cum-Clerk which is a higher post carrying higher scale of pay. They were made to work on that higher post not for a short period as a stopgap arrangement but for a long period of more than ten years. It is on these facts that the appellants have raised their claim for being allowed to continue on the higher post and questioned drop of their emoluments.
12. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India. In that case, similarly placed railway employees, who were substantively holding Group D post but were made to work for long period on higher Group C were granted partial relief by making the following directions: (SCC p. 303, paras 6-7) ......... ..........
13. The practice adopted by the Railways of taking work from employees in Group D post on higher Group C post for unduly long period legitimately raises hopes and claims for higher posts by those working in such higher posts. As the Railways is utilising for long periods the services of employees in Group D post for higher post in Group C carrying higher responsibilities, benefit of pay protection, age relaxation and counting of their service on the higher post towards requisite minimum prescribed period of service, if any, for promotion to the higher post must be granted to them as their legitimate claim.
14. As held by the High Court the appellants cannot be granted relief of regularising their services on the post of Storeman/Clerk merely on the basis of their ad hoc promotion from open line to higher post in the project or construction side.
The appellants are, however, entitled to claim age relaxation and advantage of experience for the long period spent by them on higher Group C post.
15. Without disturbing, therefore, orders of the Tribunal and the High Court the appellants are held entitled to the following additional reliefs. The pay last drawn by them in Group C post shall be protected even after their repatriation to Group D post in their parent department. They shall be considered in their turn for promotion to Group C post. The period of service spent by them on ad hoc basis in Group C post shall be given due weightage and counted towards length of requisite service, if any, prescribed for higher post in Group C. If there is any bar of age that shall be relaxed in the case of the appellants.
(d) The above decision in Bhadei Rais case was followed in the case of L. Parameswaran v. Chief Personal Officer,(2008) 3 SCC 649, wherein, the Apex court has held as under:
"14. However, in Bhadei Rai this Court noticed a scheme framed by the Railway Administration pursuant to the direction of this Court in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India . This Court in view of the said scheme and following the principles laid down therein opined that an employee who had been continued to function in a higher post and drawing a higher salary could not have been reverted and in any event would be entitled to the protection of pay and allowance. Inder Pal Yadav was concerned with a regularisation scheme. It was in terms of the said scheme, certain provisions had been made. The direction issued by this Court in Inder Pal Yadav was, therefore, in terms of the said scheme. However, the principle laid down therein will have no application to the fact of the present case.
15. The post held by the appellant was an ex-cadre post. He opted for change in his cadre. He did not have any right therefor. He in his own cadre might not have been promoted particularly when he has not passed the requisite trade test.
........... ............
18. Faced with the situation, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the question in regard to protection of pay of the appellant would be considered by an appropriate authority if a representation is filed in that behalf. Keeping in view the lapse of time, we are of the opinion that in this case we should ourselves make an endeavour to strike a balance. In our opinion, it is a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice to the parties. We think that, while upholding the validity of the order dated 7-4-2003, interest of justice would be met if the pay of the appellant is protected in the scale of pay of Rs. 4500-7500 to be fitted in the post of Technician Grade III for which the scale of pay is Rs. 3050-7000. By doing so, we would not be violating any law or perpetrating (sic perpetuating) any illegality."
17. Thus, by permitting the applicant to function as painter no monetary loss would recur to the department as it is under an obligation to protect his pay as well.
18. In view of the above, the O.A. is allowed. Keeping in view the decision of the Labour Court as upheld by the High Court that the applicant has, right from inception (from casual labour period) been functioning as Painter, coupled with the fact that he has been granted promotion in that ladder of painters and allowed to continue till date, it is declared that the post he has been holding cannot but be treated as a cadre post. Consequently, Annexure A-1 order in so far as the same relates to the applicant is concerned, is quashed and set aside. Respondent shall allow the applicant to continue as painter only.
19. No costs.
(Dated, the 20th October, 2008) (K. NOORJEHAN) (Dr. K B S RAJAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER