Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjeev Mathur vs Information And Broadcasting on 9 January, 2026
1
Item No. 43(C-VI)
O.A. No.2131/2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.2131/2022
M.A. No.2231/2022
Order reserved on : 13.11.2025
Order pronounced on : 09.01.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Shri Sanjeev Mathur,
Age 55 years(D.O.B. 03-10-1966),
S/o Bhagwat Saran Mathur,
R/o D-33, First Floor, Sector 55,
Gautam Budda Nagar.
Noida, Uttar Pradesh. 201307
2. Shri Jagdish Chand, Age 54 years,
S/o Sh. Gariba,
R/o House No. 125
Near Hanuman Mandir,
Village -Tikawali Kheri Kalan (113),
Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
3. Shri Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Upreti,
Age 55 years, S/o Sh. Krishna Nand,
R/o C-7/1, Radio Colony
Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 6.
4. Shri Chand Singh,
Age 56 years, S/o Ram Phal,
R/o Nahra(227), Nahra, Sonipat,
Haryana - 131103.
5. Shri Chakradhar Mishra,
Age 52 years,
S/o Sh. Rewa Shankar Prasad,
R/o E-19/A-2 Rajpur Khurd, IGNOU
Delhi 110068.
....Applicants
(By Advocate : Ms. Kumud Lata, Mr. Sidharth
Narayan Das and Ms. Pooja Rathore)
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
Date: 2026.01.12
17:11:53+05'30'
2
Item No. 43(C-VI)
O.A. No.2131/2022
Versus
Union of India & Ors., Through-
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General, Doordarshan,
Tower A, Doordarshan Bhavan,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi - 1.
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti,
Secretariat (India's Public Service Broadcasting),
Tower 'C', Doordarshan Bhawan
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-1.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Vertika Sharma, Mr. Pradeep
Kumar Sharma)
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
Date: 2026.01.12
17:11:53+05'30'
3
Item No. 43(C-VI)
O.A. No.2131/2022
ORDER
MA No.2231/2022
This Application has been filed by the applicants seeking permission of this Tribunal to join together in a single Application.
2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the MA is allowed.
OA No.2131/2022
3. The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s) :-
"(i) To direct the respondents to grant higher pay and allowance to the applicants along with all consequential benefits at par with the Floor Assistants regularized prior to the applicants in accordance with 1992 and 1994 scheme,
(ii) To direct the respondent for counting the Qualifying Service i.e., from the date of their initial booking as per the Rule '13' & '17' of CCS Rules for grant of Old Pension Scheme to the Applicants and Medical Benefits as per CGHS scheme (post retirement),
(iii) To direct the Respondent for the payment of arrears of pay along with all the Consequential Benefits in accordance with 1992 & 1994 Scheme such as Provident Fund, Gratuity and Other Allowances etc. and give similar treatment to the applicant as given to similarly placed persons, and
(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR facts and circumstances of the case."
RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 4 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022
4. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicants, who are five in number, became eligible for empanelment and further for regularization in the category of Floor Assistant by Central Production Centre (CPC) vide Regularization Scheme No.2(3) 86- SI dated 09.06.1992, which was issued by the respondent No.2. They worked in CPC as casual Floor Assistant and were regularised in the month of July, 2015. They are not given the Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-, however, certain ineligible persons and the ones who stood much below the name of some of the applicants were granted the benefits. Aggrieved, the applicant No.1&3 filed OA No.839/1993 along with MP No.1193/1993 titled as Sanjeev Mathur & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, in which interim order dated 29.04.1993 was passed directing the respondents to empanel the applicants, if they are entitled. Subsequently, applicant No.2 also filed OA No.2075/1993.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that certain clarifications regarding regularization of casual artists in Doordarshan bearing No.4(1)/94-S.1 against the doubts raised was issued on 07.12.1994, Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 and against the doubt No.3, it was clarified that "as 17:11:53+05'30' 5 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 per guidelines of the scheme of regularization, the inter- se-seniority of casual artists shall be fixed on the basis of their date of first engagement. If two or more casuals happened to be engaged on same day, their seniority shall be determined on the basis of their dates of birth. Hence the older person will get precedence over other".
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that respondents have regularized the services of all the similarly placed persons, namely, Siya Ram Prasad (Sl. No.22), Anand Prasad Arya (Sl. No.30), Suraj Mal (Sl. No.28), Vikas Guwalani (Sl. No.15) and Rajendra Ram (Sl. No.18), however, to the exclusion of the instant applicants inspite of their requests.
7. He further submitted that in identical OA(s), filed before different Benches, directions have been issued by the Tribunal time and again to pass appropriate orders for extending the benefit to the applicants therein at par with their counter parts.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have made various representations to the respondents regarding grant of higher pay Digitally signed by scale, Old Pension Scheme, CGHS Medical Benefit, RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 6 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 PF, Gratuity and other allowances, however, no reply has yet been given by the respondents. He submitted that the respondents have acted in a highly illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner and in violation of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as they have not dealt with their case at par with similarly situated persons.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants drew attention to Rule 3(1) (q) and Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, conjoint reading of which makes it clear that qualifying service for the purpose of pension would commence from the date of initial appointment in temporary capacity on substantive appointment of the applicants. Rule 3(1) (q) of the said Rules reads as under :-
"`Qualifying Service' means service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules"
10. Further, Rule 13 and Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, read as under :-
"13. Commencement of qualifying service Digitally signed by Subject to the provisions of these rules, RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes 17:11:53+05'30' 7 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity :
Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post"
17. Counting of service on contract -
(1) A person who is initially engaged by the Government on a contract for a specified period and is subsequently appointed to the same or another post in a substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment without interruption of duty, may opt either:-
(a) to retain the Government contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund with interest thereon including any other compensation for that service ; or
(b) to agree to refund to the Government the monetary benefits referred to in Clause (a) or to forgo the same if they have not been paid to him and count in lieu thereof the service for which the aforesaid monetary benefits may have been payable.
(2) The option under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated to the Head of Office under intimation to the Accounts Officer within a period of three months from the date of issue of the order of permanent transfer to pensionable service, or if the Government servant is on leave on that day, within three months of his return from leave, whichever is later.
(3) If no communication is received by the Head of Office within the period referred to in sub-rule (2), the Government servant shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the monetary benefits payable or paid to him on account of service rendered on contract."Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 8 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022
11. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) State of Uttarakhand Vs. Archana Shukla & Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 194.
(ii) M.K. Sharmugam Vs. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 476.
(iii) Rudra Kumar Sain and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (2000) 8 SCC 25.
(iv) Amarendra Kumar Mohapatra and Ors. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 583.
(v) Director General Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corp. Of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Magi H. Desai Civil Appeal No.1787/2023.
(vi) S.D. Jayaprakash and Ors. Etc. Vs. The Union of India & Ors. arising out of SLP(C) No.19539-19540 of 2021.
(vii) Mala Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No.10672 of 2016.
(viii) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Munshi Ram 2022 Digitally signed by LiveLaw (SC) 891. RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 9 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022
(ix) State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi SLP(C) No.10399/2020.
12. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the OA suffers from delay and latches as the applicants are claiming parity with the persons who were regularized in 1994 whereas their own regularization took place in 2015 and the applicants are trying to change their date of regularisation in order to get the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the DOP&T clarification, seniority is determined from the date of regularization and not from the date of casual engagement and the scheme of 1992/94 stands closed as on date.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that many casual officials who appeared in the original eligibility list have been scrutinized and were not part of final list as they were not eligible due to certain reasons. Many of the casuals were not even regularised like their counter parts because there were no vacancies and the applicants have failed to RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR establish any parity with the similarly placed persons. Digitally signed by Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 10 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 She submitted that the regularization was subject to availability of vacancies.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no specific name of a person or date of appointment or even a year has been mentioned which has been brought with exact criteria on record to seek parity. Secondly, those persons have not been impleaded as party.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents contested the argument made on CCS (Pension) Rules. She submitted that as per Rule 13 of the said Rules, the service rendered on substantive post or service rendered as officiating or temporary service shall be treated as qualifying service, but the service rendered as casual/contractual employee cannot be said to be officiating or temporary service or a service rendered on a substantive appointment. She further submitted that regularization of casual service of the artists is covered by a scheme known as Scheme of Doordarshan for Regularization of Staff Artist, 1992- 1994. As per the DOP&T letter dated 03.09.2009, it was clarified that "there is no provision in the FRs for RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR fixation of pay in case of a contractual appointment and Digitally signed by Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 11 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 such individuals on their subsequent appointment to a government post are treated as fresh entrants."
16. While concluding, she submitted that no discrimination has been done by the respondents to the applicants at the time of regularization. The process was followed on the basis of Rules which governed the regularization policy of the scheme of 1992-1994.
17. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for applicants submitted that when a candidate fulfils all the requirements in the scheme on a particular date, that date is supposed to be treated initial engagement and the candidate's eligibility shall be settled on that particular initial engagement in the seniority amongst others. In support of his averments, he placed on record the details of five persons whose names have been referred to above and who were regularized in the year 1994. He submitted that these five persons were similarly placed in the same Kendra and they were given appointment in 1994, ignoring the applicants who were eligible for appointment in the year 1992.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and Digitally signed by perused the material available on record. RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 12 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 Analysis
19. The contentions of applicants may have following heads/points :-
(i) Parity with other Floor Assistants regularized prior to the applicants.
(ii) Applicability of Old Pension Scheme and medical benefits as per CGHS Scheme (post retirement).
20. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare OM No.S.11011/10/2012-CGHS(P)/EHS dated 28.03.2017, has extended the benefit of CGHS to employees covered under New Pension Scheme, thus this issue has become infructuous.
21. Vide its OM dated 09.06.1992, the Govt. of India issued a scheme for regularization of casual Artists in Doordarshan against the available vacancies in the erstwhile staff Artists Category. Para 2 of the said OM stipulates that "since the erstwhile staff Artist categories posts have been declared civil posts, reservation of posts for SC/ST would also be applicable while considering regularization and accordingly 40 points roster of vacancies will be followed." Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 13 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022
22. Consequent to the consideration of expert committee's recommendations, the DOP&T decided to modify its earlier OM No.36012/31/90-Estt. (SCT) dated 13.08.1990 and DOP&T issued an OM No.36012/22/1993-Estt. (SCT) dated 08.09.1993 on the subject - Reservation for other Backward Classes to civil posts and services under the Government of India to provide that 27% of the vacancies to civil posts and services under the Government of India to be filled through direct recruitment shall be reserved for OBCs.
23. It is the claim of the applicants that Shri Siya Ram and Shri Anand Prakash were engaged as casual Assistants on later date with Shri Sanjiv Mathur. Thus, the applicants are claiming parity with Shri Siya Ram and Shri Anand Prakash in terms of pay fixation as well as the other consequential benefits. In this regard, it is clarified by the respondents in their counter reply that Shri Siya Ram belongs to OBC category and Shri Anand Prakash belongs to SC Category. Therefore, as per Government Policy/Doordarshan Policy, the benefit of reservation Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 in service to OBC candidate (Shri Siya Ram) and SC 17:11:53+05'30' 14 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 Candidate (Shri Anand Prakash) was given, whereas the applicant belongs to General Category and no comparison/parity can be legally permissible specifically when the posts are to be filled up on the vacancy basis and at the time, the department/organisation has taken into account the reservation roaster as per para 2 of the policy on the subject issued in 1992.
24. The applicants have relied upon the judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.10672/2016 in the case of Mala Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the respondents (Railways) to grant family pension to the applicant since 2014, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the husband of Mala Devi had completed service as substitute for 9 years 8 months and 26 days and he was just 3 months short of completing threshold of decade in service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, keeping in view the Rule 75 r/w Rule 18(3) of Railway Service (Pension) Rules, Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 1993 extended benefits of family pension and death 17:11:53+05'30' 15 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 gratuity in the event of death in harness of a temporary Railway Servant. However, in the instant case, there is no statutory rule or policy of the Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India (DPBCI) to count the contractual/casual service as temporary service and to count the same for pensionary benefits. Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mala Devi's case (supra) renders no help to the applicants.
25. The applicants have also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 31.10.2022 in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Munshi Ram 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 891, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying upon several previous judgments of the Hon'ble Court and also taking into consideration the policy of the Railways that the Commission Vendors/bearers are entitled to 50% of the service rendered prior to their regularisation to be counted for pensionary benefits, granted relief. In the instant case, there is no such policy of the respondents to count such contractual or casual service rendered prior to regularisation for pensionary benefits, thus the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 16 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 case also renders no help to the applicants to establish their case.
26. The applicants have also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 07.08.2023 in SLP (Civil) No.10399/2020 in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi. It is noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed its order in Sheela Devi's case (supra) in light of the fact that State Government has introduced a new pension scheme on 04.05.2023 to provide benefits to the employees who were induced in State Government service on or after 15.05.2003 and accorded them the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. Thus, the said judgement is also distinguishable.
27. The applicants have also relied upon the order of this Tribunal passed on 23.03.2022 by the Jaipur Bench, which is the second round of litigation earlier being filed challenging the draft seniority list and the second OA No.691/2019 being filed challenging the final seniority list. The said OA was allowed with direction to revise the seniority list of the applicants therein, whereas in the instant case, the applicants Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR have not challenged either the draft seniority list or Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 17 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 the final seniority list. In these circumstances, the said order of Jaipur Bench relied upon by the applicants is also distinguishable with respect to the present facts of the case.
28. Further the applicants relied upon another order of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.561/2018. The applicant in that OA came to know through RTI that there was a post available at Kolkata and the respondents intentionally did not appoint him and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the said OA was allowed and the services of the applicant were regularised retrospectively. However, it is not the case of the present applicants that posts were vacant and inspite of that they were not appointed. Therefore, the reliance placed on the order of the Cuttack Bench is also distinguishable.
29. Further the reliance placed on Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules is misplaced as the said Rules envisage that the service rendered on substantive post or service rendered as officiating or temporary service shall be treated as qualifying service, but the service Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR rendered as casual/contractual employee cannot be RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 18 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 said to be officiating or temporary service or a service rendered on a substantive appointment
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its decision dated 24.03.2023 in an identical matter pertaining to Doordarshan itself in Civil Appeal No.1787/2023 titled Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anrs. Vs. Smt. Magi H. Desai has held as under :-
6. The respondent is governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rules 13 & 14 of the 1972 Rules, which are relevant for deciding the controversy in the present case, read as under:
"13. Commencement of qualifying service - Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity :
Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post :
Provided further that -
(a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group `D'.......
(b)in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a),...
14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies:Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR
(1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify, unless his duties and RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 19 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government.
(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression "Service" means service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund administered by that Government but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government.
(3) In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State Government, who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered under the State Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, if any, followed without interruption by substantive appointment, or the continuous service rendered under that Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, as the case may be, shall qualify :
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply to any such Government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service or post to which these rules apply."
7. Rule 13 of the 1972 Rules provides for commencement of qualifying service. As per Rule 13, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. It further provides that such officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. Therefore, the Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR services rendered on a substantive post or services rendered as officiating or temporary RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 20 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 service shall be treated as qualifying service.
Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be officiating or temporary service. Even the services rendered as temporary service can be considered as qualifying service provided that the officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment.
8. Under the circumstances and on a fair reading and interpretation of Rule 13 of the 1972 Rules, the High Court has committed a very serious error in observing that the services in temporary capacity will include the classes of temporary service such as casual or even contractual. The High Court has materially erred in observing that the contractual service would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity. The question is not whether the services rendered by a contractual employee would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity. The question is, whether, in fact, such contractual employee rendered the services as temporary or not.
9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that in other departments under the scheme the employees of such departments are entitled to their services rendered as casual/contractual counted for qualifying service for pensionary/service benefits is concerned, merely because some other departments might have such schemes, the respondent shall not be entitled to the same benefit in absence of any scheme in the appellants' department/department in which the respondent rendered her services. The appellant - Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR Corporation of India is an autonomous independent department/body. As observed RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 21 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 hereinabove, neither the rule nor the regularisation scheme provide that services rendered as casual/contractual shall be treated as temporary service and/or the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application is hereby restored. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
31. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India is an autonomous body and no rule or regularization scheme provides that services rendered on casual/contractual basis shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary/service benefits.
32. The judgment relied upon by the respondents in this context passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1787/2023 titled Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anrs. Vs. Smt. Magi H. Desai comes to the rescue Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR of the respondents and in view thereof the OA RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30' 22 Item No. 43(C-VI) O.A. No.2131/2022 deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits and as a result thereof, the OA is dismissed.
33. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) Member (J) „rk‟ Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR Date: 2026.01.12 17:11:53+05'30'