Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. R.K. Kapoor vs Union Of India on 4 December, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-472/2006
New Delhi this the 4th day of December, 2009.
Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member(J)
Honble Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A)
Sh. R.K. Kapoor,
Asstt. Accounts Officer,
O/O PAO SSB (MHA)
East Block IX, Level-VI,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66.
R/o F-5/4, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi-57. . Applicant
(through Ms. Arti Mahajan, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Cabinet Secretary,
Cabinet Secretariat,
North Block,
New Delhi.
2. The Special Secretary (SR),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Bikaner House (Annexe),
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi.
3. The Director of Accounts,
Cabinet Secretariat,
East Block-9, Level-VII,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66.
4. The Chief Controller of Accounts,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Room No. 127-D, North Block,
New Delhi.
5. The Controller of Accounts,
PAO SSB (MHA),
East Block IX, Level-VI,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi-66.
6. The Controller General of Accounts,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan Market,
New Delhi.
7. The Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi. . Respondents
(through Sh. N.K. Aggarwal and Sh. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate)
O R D E R
Mr. N.D. Dayal, Member(A) The Director of Accounts Cadre was a common cadre providing accounts service to various departments such as:-
a) Special Service Bureau (SSB)
b) Aviation Research Centre (ARC)
c) Special Frontier Force (SFF)
d) Chief Inspector of Armaments (CIOA)
e) Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)
f) Special Protection Group (SPG) The officers working in this Cadre were functioning under the Cabinet Secretariat. The office of Director of Accounts Cabinet Secretariat (DACS) was initially divided into two wings Special Wing and Main Wing. The SSB, ARC. SFF and CIOA units were under the main wing. The applicant joined the DACS as Auditor on 27.09.1977 and was posted in the Special Wing. According to him, he passed the JAO(Civil) exam in January 1990. He was promoted as Senior Auditor on 18.04.1990 in DACS where he remained in Special Wing. He was promoted as Section Officer (SO) on 31.01.1991 in the Special Wing and was eligible for Senior SO on 31.01.1994 but actually promoted in his turn on 30.09.1998. He continued in the Special Wing of the DACS except for 3 to 4 years during the period 1994 to 1997-1998 when he was placed in the Main Wing of DACS.
2. On 15.01.2001 the government transferred the Special Service Bureau (SSB) from Cabinet Secretariat to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) consequent upon the recommendations of task force and approval of the Prime Minister. Consequent upon such transfer the government sanctioned the transfer of 125 posts by order dated 09.03.2001 from the office of DACS to Director General (DG), SSB, MHA for handling the accounts work of SSB with immediate effect. These included 14 posts of Senior SOs (Accounts)/SO(Accounts). A copy of this order at Annexure A-6 shows that these posts were transferred from DACS (Main Wing) to SSB, MHA. It is submitted that due to budgetary reasons the work of SSB remained under the control of DACS upto the end of the next financial year 2001-2002 when charge of the same was actually taken over on 01.04.2002.
3. In the meanwhile by Office Order dated 03.04.2001 the DACS posted the applicant along with other SOs/Sr.SOs to its different sections by way of reorganization in the office of DACS consequent upon transfer of SSB to MHA. The applicant was posted to GE(E)II(SSB W). This was done after transfer of 125 posts from the Main Wing. He contends that he was shocked by such transfer to SSB Wing of DACS. As a result he was thereafter transferred to PAO (SSB)MHA as the posts and officers/staff of SSB Wing were constituted into PAO (SSB) MHA. No option was ever taken before transfer to SSB Wing of DACS/PAO (SSB) MHA. The transfer from SSB to MHA was done on as is where is basis as per the order dated 16.04.2001 at Annexure A-7. The applicant thus stood transferred to the office of CCA MHA-respondent No.4 effective from 01.04.2002. The service conditions/recruitment rules etc. applicable to the persons constituting PAO SSB(MHA) was not made clear and no formal encadrement had taken place. It was only when by order dated 01.08.2003 of the CGA, MOF at Annexure A-2 that the 125 posts and persons constituting PAO SSB (MHA) were formally encadred into the CCA Cadre under CGA against equivalent posts that the applicant, who too was encadred in the equivalent post of Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO), that he became aware of the recruitment rules that would apply to him in the new cadre. However, he remained ignorant about his seniority there until gradation list of AAO as on 01.04.2004 became available around October of that year. Then he realized that his seniority had been adversely affected. As many as 441 officers at serial Nos. 542 to 983 in the list were above him as his name was at serial No. 984, even though they had passed the JAO exam after January 1990 and got their promotion as JAO (equivalent to SO) after 31.01.1991, in both aspects being junior to the applicant. The reason was that the seniority list was based on the date of promotion as AAO equivalent to Sr.SO. In fact in the original CCA cadre, JAOs promoted after the applicant had already received their second promotion as AAO earlier than the applicant as well as their counterparts in the original DACS cadre. This was only due to non-availability of vacant posts and non-convening of DPC in the DACS cadre.
4. The applicant made a detailed representation to the CGA, MOF, on 17.12.2004 inter-alia seeking refixation of his seniority based on the date of passing the JAO(C) examination. He had pointed out that at the time of his transfer to PAO SSB no option was called for. By the reply dated 18.03.2005 the applicant was informed that the seniority of officials transferred from DACS was fixed in consultation with DoP&T and in the manner prescribed by them. As such there was no scope for any revision in the seniority list. It then became evident to the applicant that his transfer and encadrement in CCA MHA was not only violative of the policy of as is where is basis but also contrary to DoP&T guidelines of taking an option before change of cadre whereby not only his service conditions but also his seniority were adversely affected resulting in his supersession by a large number of juniors in the merged cadre in CCA causing prejudice to him.
5. Thereafter on 10.08.2005 the applicant represented again stating that either his seniority be refixed in consultation with DoP&T if required, or he should be reverted back to his parent cadre in DACS. But there has been no reply.
6. The applicant alleges mala fide in these facts and circumstances, particularly since he was transferred hardly a month after transfer of 125 officers/staff along with posts, which shows that he was picked up for being ousted from DACS to accommodate someone-else who already stood transferred to PAO SSB on as is where is basis by the order dated 09.03.2001. However, it is noticed that the applicant has not impleaded anybody by name.
7. In this background the applicant assails his transfer as unfair and arbitrary which has affected his seniority, service conditions and prospects of promotion to higher posts. He points out that even though DACS may be a similar cadre he would not have had to face such civil consequences. He mentions the example of bifurcation of Ministry of Communications into Department of Posts and Department of Telecom in which employees were given option to join either department. It is stated that this example was also followed by this Tribunal in OA-513/2002 (Suresh Kumar Nayak Vs. UOI & Ors.). A copy of this order is placed at Annexure A-14. A copy of the High Court order is also at Annexure A-15 by which CW-3000/2003 assailing the Tribunal order was dismissed. Further, in a similar case of Shri Pradeep Bhatnagar Vs. UOI & Ors. OA-2320/2003 which related to the same department, the Tribunal held by its order dated 02.01.2004, inter alia, that a person recruited to a particular cadre cannot be compelled to serve outside his cadre and provisions of Rule 15 of FRSR do not permit such transfer without option being taken. A copy of this judgment has been placed at Annexure A-15A. The applicant further refers to the case of Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 1975(1)SLR wherein the Honble High Court had held that a joint cadre could only be dismembered if the fundamental right of a public servant is not infringed.
8. It is submitted that an option was proposed to be sought from the concerned 125 persons constituting PAO SSB as per CGA letter dated 20.09.2002 but the options were not taken. The applicant could not have been transferred even on as is where is basis because he was not working in the Main Wing of DACS but continuing in the Special Wing till the impugned order of transfer dated 03.04.2001. In fact, on the basis of the policy of as is where is basis the applicant should have been retained in the Special Wing instead of being transferred. On the relevant dates viz. 15.01.2001 and 09.03.2001 the applicant was in the Special Wing. He points out that in the case of Anil Kumar Mehra Vs. Special Secretary (OA No. 389/2003) decided by the Tribunal on 29.10.2003 the issue was identical since the applicant therein had challenged his transfer from the Special Wing of DACS to SSB Wing and thereafter to PAO SSB (MHA) after 09.03.2001. It was observed that no person in a round about manner can be transferred in a unit or in the present case to MHA in the circumstances referred to above. The decision to transfer staff on as is where is basis was taken on 09.03.2001, transfer on as is where is basis should be taken from that date.. A copy of this order is placed at Annexure A-16. The applicant states that since his representation was rejected on 18.03.2005 he got a fresh cause of action for seeking reversion to his parent cadre and quashing of the impugned orders. Therefore, in this background, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
(i) to quash and set aside the impugned order No. Admn.VI(14)/Vol.XX/ 1-45 dated 3.4.2001 issued by the Deputy Director of Accounts from the office of Director of Accounts (to the extent it transfers the applicant from the Special Wing of DACS to the SSB Wing) [Annexure A-1 to this application].
(ii) to quash the transfer of the applicant to PAO SSB MHA and to the office of the Chief Controller of Accounts (MHA) from his parent office of Director of Accounts, Cabinet Secretariat.
(iii) to quash the order NO.A.11019/2/97/ MF. CGA(A)/Gr.B/MH/536 dated 1.8.2003, to the extent it formally inducts the applicant into the Central Civil Accounts Service Cadre under CGA (Annexure A-2 to this application).
(iv) to direct the respondent DACS (respondent No.2 herein) to take back the applicant w.e.f. 3.4.2001, in the same Wing (Special Wing) of the DACS in which he was working just before being transferred to the SSB Wing vide the impugned order dated 3.4.2001 with all consequential benefits.
(v) to grant cost of this application to the applicant.
9. The respondents have opposed the prayer of the applicant by taking the preliminary objection that it was time barred. It is further submitted that the applicant cannot claim grievance because no option was taken at the time of transfer to SSB Wing in the DACS, because that was a part of the DACS itself at the time when such transfer was made and as such the applicant remained within DACS cadre only. As such the applicant cannot claim to be prejudiced if he was transferred by the competent authority within DACS itself. Further, since the appointment of the applicant carried the liability to be transferred out of Delhi/the department if any portion of the office moved elsewhere, or if any work done in the office was transferred elsewhere, such appointment having been accepted by him without any reservation, he cannot challenge or make a grievance of having been ultimately encadred in the CCA Cadre under the CGA, MOF.
10. The respondents submit that the applicant has not been put to any disadvantage firstly because the cadre in DACS was much smaller than the CCA Cadre and hence he had better opportunities in the latter for future prospects. The two cadres are similar and follow rules and regulations which are by and large the same, and even the accountancy standards are the same. Thus, while his transfer from Special Wing to SSB Wing on 03.04.2001 was within the cadre and within the administrative powers of the competent authority, his subsequent transfer to PAO SSB from 01.04.2002 was due to the transfer of 125 officers and staff of DACS for setting up PAO SSB under the administrative control of CCA MHA on the accepted principle of as is where is basis.
11. The complaint of the applicant that he was placed below 441 officials in the seniority list in the CCA cadre is not tenable because he was promoted as AAO on 30.09.1998 in the DACS whereas the officials against whom he is claiming seniority were promoted as AAO before 30.09.1998 in the office of CGA. The seniority of the applicant in the merged cadre can only be fixed as per the advice of DoP&T in this regard according to which when equivalent cadres are merged, seniority can be fixed only with reference to the date of appointment, inter se seniority in each grade being maintained. The impact of such seniority in the merged grade upon promotional prospects is a natural consequence.
12. The respondents argue that order dated 09.03.2001 by which 125 posts were transferred from Cabinet Secretariat to SSB MHA only shows the kind of posts which stood transferred and not the persons who stood transferred. As such, the work of SSB and CIAO were allocated to 125 officials and staff of DACS mainly on as is where is basis except a few minor deviations which were necessary on account of reallocation/readjustment of mixed sections and keeping in view the need for equitable distribution of work, rotation of staff on the basis of accepted principles as follows:-
(a) Transfer as per work requirement/work load at the end of the financial year.
(b) Adjustment on account of deputations.
(c) Reallocation and distribution of work of mixed/common sections.
(d) Ensuring that vacancies are not passed on to the new setup i.e. PAO, SSB so that they get full complement of staff.
(e) Work does not suffer in the SSB Wing.
(f) Maintain ratio of 80:20 principle for Sr. S.O./SOs and also keep SC/ST balance.
This exercise was undertaken during the period from 09.03.2001 to 31.03.2002 during which the applicant along with others continued with DACS due to budgetary reasons. Therefore, it was only from 01.04.2002 that the said 125 officers/staff along with office records stood transferred on as his where is basis. These persons have thereafter been encadred within 1 = years in the department of CCA MHA/Controller of Accounts. No new cadre has been formed. Thus the transfer of the applicant along with other officers and staff was necessitated from DACS to PAO SSB MHA because the work had been transferred and the question of obtaining option before transfer to CGA does not arise.
13. It is noticed that a counter reply has also been filed by CGA, MOF, who are respondent No.6, wherein it has been stated that the applicant was inducted in the CCA because he stood transferred from DACS and posted in the office of CCA MHA under administrative control of the CGA, MOF. While it is claimed that the application is hit by delay since the impugned order was passed long back on 01.08.2003, it is also argued that the applicants grievance regarding seniority is not justified because he has cleared JAO (common) examination and not the JAO (Civil) examination which is relevant to the CCA. They have enclosed at Annexure R-1 a comparative chart which reveals that the JAO (Civil) examination includes specialized Accounts Rules and Procedure which is absent in the case of JAO, (Common) Examination. As also there is no paper in the latter but there is paper on Supply Accounts in the former.
14. It has been pointed out that by a letter dated 20.09.2002 at Annexure R-2, the DACS was reminded of an earlier letter dated 09.05.2002 whereby Recruitment Rules were forwarded so as to facilitate obtaining options from the cadre of officers of DACS. It was pointed out that in a meeting dated 29.04.2002 it had been decided that DACS would obtain options from the concerned 125 persons who could be transferred from DACS. This was, however, not done and the matter was left to the CGA, MOF.
15. The applicant in his rejoinder reiterates the grounds taken in the OA and claims that comparison between the two cadres will not help in view of the differences in RRs. It was only the administrative control of SSB which had been transferred to MHA on 15.01.2001 but on 09.03.2001 when 125 officers and staff were transferred, it was on as is where is basis. On these two dates the applicant was still in the Special Wing of DACS and therefore could not have been included. In fact the DACS was no longer competent to transfer the applicant from DACS Special Wing to SSB Wing, which constituted PAO SSB, after 09.03.2001 when the officers and staff already stood transferred to SSB, MHA. Since the SSB Wing was re-constituted and transferred to PAO SSB this movement itself was a change in cadre. Evidently, the DACS have discounted the communication advising them to obtain options and left it to the CGA, MOF. The conditions of service mentioned in his offer of appointment were applicable only for the cadre of DACS. He submits that the plea of his application being barred by time cannot stand because he could not know the grievance caused to him until the gradation list of AAO was published and came to his notice in late 2004. It is made clear that the applicant is not seeking fixation of his seniority in the new cadre but his transfer back to the DACS cadre. He has thus reiterated his prayer for reversion to his parent cadre from where he was illegally transferred to the new cadre. He points out that a government servant cannot even be sent on deputation to any other department without option/application or obtaining consent from him, then how can his services be transferred to any other department/cadre without obtaining his option/application or even without any notice.
16. By his rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.6 the applicant emphasizes that the relief claimed by him is also against the order dated 01.08.2003 by which he was encadred in CCA. He reiterates that the terms and conditions and Recruitment Rules etc. were not revealed by them and thus he remained in the dark about the service conditions and career prospects that awaited him in this new cadre. While he does not deny having passed the JAO (Common) Examination now, he argues that if this examination was different from JAO (Civil) Examination it was all the more necessary that he should not have been transferred to a new cadre which was significantly different without taking an option.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the pleadings. Synopsis has also been submitted by them.
18. This application was filed in February 2006. While considering prayer in MA-1381/2006 not to transfer the applicant out of PAO SSB(MHA) to another office/department under CGA, the Tribunal ordered status quo on 11.08.2006. On 21.08.2006 it was recorded that the transfer order dated 25.07.2006 had been cancelled by order dated 09.08.2006 and the Tribunal directed that the applicant be continued where he is presently posted till further orders. An MA-1801/2006 was filed by the respondents taking the objection of delay and laches in filing OA. This was taken up along with OA. The OA was decided by the orders passed on 09.08.2007 and dismissed for delay and limitation. A Writ Petiton No. 607/2008 was filed before the Honble High Court of Delhi which by its order dated 12.03.2009 set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 09.08.2007 and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits. It was further ordered that the parties would appear before the Tribunal on 05.05.2009 and till the next date of hearing status quo regarding the posting of the petitioner shall be maintained. The order of status quo passed by the Honble High Court was continued by the Tribunal.
19. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of the Tribunal in OA-513/2002 with MA-916/2002 in the case of Suresh Kumar Nayak Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 13.11.2002 by a Co-ordinate Bench. In this matter the applicant was Assistant in the office DG SSB, MHA and when the units under the DG were reorganized and trifurcated the applicant was nominated to the SSB unit although he had requested for transfer to another component unit viz. ARC. His chances of promotion were stated to have been adversely affected and juniors were likely to get advantage over seniors. The applicant was aggrieved that his option was not taken in advance just as options were given to employees of Department of Posts and Department of Telecom as per DoP&T instructions when bifurcation took place in Ministry of Communications. The Tribunal, inter alia, kept in view the judgment in the case of Krishan Kapania and Others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1975(1)SLR wherein it had been held that when bifurcation results in discriminatory treatment it would not be sustainable in law unless fundamental rights of public servants are not infringed. Thus the bifurcation was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the matter was decided by observing that while allocating cadres it was hoped that the directions of the DoP&T as followed in the case of Ministry of Communication will be taken into consideration. When this matter was carried to the Honble High Court of Delhi in CW-3000/2003 the Court in its order dated 06.11.2003 noticed that the Tribunal had relied on a circular of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions of May 1994 when the two separate cadres in the Ministry of Communications were created. The Court expressed surprise that when two out of three units would be under Ministry of Communication and one under MHA, why should the same principle not have been followed. It was noticed that there should be no apprehension that if such options are given it will open flood gates of similar representations because the decision for trifurcation of units had been taken in 2001 whereas only a few employees had asked for the options. As such the Tribunal order to give option to the respondent before the Honble High Court, to decide whether he would like to be shifted to ARC from SSB on trifurcation of the four units of DG Security, was upheld.
20. The applicant has also cited the case of Sh. Pradeep Bhatnagar Vs. UOI (OA-2320/2003) and the case of Sh. Chetan Kumar Rajput & Ors. Vs. UOI (OA-2323/2003) decided on 02.01.2004 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. The Tribunal had noted that the DACS has two wings i.e. Special Wing and Main Wing but the staff was transferable from one to the other and there was a common seniority list. While Pradeep Bhatnagar was a SO in Cabinet Secretariat, Chetan Kumar Rajput were Auditors and Senior Auditors therein. When 125 posts were transferred to MHA the applicants were also transferred accordingly. It had been contended that the transfer was on as is where is basis and in the national interest in terms of recommendations of Special Task Force on intelligence apparatus approved by the Prime Minister. The applicants were aggrieved that while transferring them from DACS, which was a separate cadre, their options had not been taken. In fact, at one time options were to be called for but later there was a decision against it. The Tribunal noticed another decision of this Tribunal of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Mehra Vs. Special Secretary & Ors. (OA-389/2003) decided on 29.10.2003 and found that this application had been allowed on the ground of violation of the policy of as is where is basis and it was further noted that in terms of FR 15 a government servant could not be transferred by changing of his cadre. The judgement in the case of Suresh Kumar Nayak (supra) had also been taken into account to conclude that while transfer could be effected to another post in the same cadre it could not be effected to another cadre without option being taken. By reference to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of P.U. Joshi and Ors. Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 632 it was observed that if service conditions were to be changed or cadre was to be bifurcated or amalgamated the necessary rules would need to be amended for which powers exist with the government. A judgment of the Honble High Court in the case of Prem Parveen Vs. UOI & Ors., 1973(2)SLR 659 had also been considered wherein it was held that a Government Servant recruited to a particular cadre cannot be compelled to serve outside his cadre without any option being taken or the rules having been amended.
21. A perusal of the copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Anil Kumar Mehra (supra) enclosed with the OA shows that it was a case very similar to the present one. The applicant therein was Senior Auditor PAO SSB (MHA) and had taken grounds similar to those that the applicant has put forward in the present case. He was aggrieved that by order passed by the DACS on 26.02.2002 he was transferred to SSB Wing and thereafter by order of 01.04.2002 posted with CCA MHA. Thus while changing his cadre his option had not been taken and it was also violative of the transfer which was ordered on as is where is basis. He had never worked in the Main Wing. He, therefore, sought quashing of the order dated 26.02.2002 and transfer back to the Special Wing of DACS. The respondents had justified their actions by taking the stand that there was no change in the cadre and it was not necessary to take any option. They had argued that the applicant had accepted the terms and conditions of service carrying liability of transfer at the time of his appointment. The applicant had relied upon the judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar Nayak (supra) and argued that he had been transferred just a month before the transfer order of 2002 which was violative of the provisions of as is where is basis. A reference was made also to the trifurcation of DGS (Secretarial) service in support of the claim.
22. The Tribunal had noticed that a cadre means strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit in terms of FR-9(4). It also took into account the provisions of FR 15 as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in P.U. Joshi (supra). Keeping in view the various grounds put forward as also the fact that the applicant had been transferred to SSB Wing about a month before the order of 2002 was passed, the Tribunal allowed the application by quashing the impugned order with necessary consequences and held that the applicant should be sent back to his parent unit in the Cabinet Secretariat.
23. The learned counsel for the applicant has brought to notice that the case of Suresh Kumar Nayak (supra) is pending before the Honble Supreme Court whereas the case of Anil Kumar Mehra is pending decision before the Honble High Court along with the case of Shri Pradeep Bhatnagar and Chetan Kumar Rajput and Ors. in Writ Petition Nos. 17693-97/2004, 17688-92/2004 etc. It is brought to notice that Suresh Kumar Nayak was repatriated to the Executive Service of Cabinet Secretariat subject to the out come of the decision in the SLP before the Apex Court. This is not disputed.
24. We also note that the Honble High Court of Delhi has already by its order dated 24.09.2007 in WP-607/2008 set aside the order of the Tribunal by which this OA had been dismissed on the ground of delay and limitation and directed this matter to be adjudicated on merits. Since the interim orders have been extended from time to time ever since the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal, the applicant would be continuing where he was posted.
25. We find that the facts and circumstances of the present case are very much similar to the cases discussed above upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant and we see no reason to disagree. It is not the respondents case that any option was taken from the applicant nor that the orders passed in the above judgments have been stayed by the Honble High Court or the Honble Supreme Court. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned orders are set aside. The applicant shall be sent back to his parent unit in the Cabinet Secretariat. This would however be subject to the final out come of the cases pending before the Honble High Court and the SLP before the Honble Supreme Court.
26. The OA is allowed in the above terms. Interim order is vacated. No costs.
(N.D. Dayal) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member(A) Member(J)
/vv/
1. OA-472 was filed on 15.02.2006
2. MA-1381/2006 was filed by applicant 04.08.2006
For grant of interim relief on
3. Reply to OA on behalf of respondents 13.12.2006
4. Rejoinder to the reply to the OA 14.12.2007
5. Reply on behalf of R-6 was filed on 28.02.2007
6. Rejoinder to reply of R-6 29.03.2007
7. MA-1801/2006 filed on behalf of 03.10.2006
behalf of respondents
8. MA-913/07 filed on behalf of 17.04.2007
Respondents for correct verification
To be taken on record
9. MA-861/2009 was filed by applicant 05.05.2009
For grant of interim relief