Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Subhra Das vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 4 September, 2025
1 O.A. 738 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/738/2023 Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025
Date of Order : 04.09.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
1. Smt. Subhra Das wife late Dr. Dhurjati Prasad
Das aged about 70 years (DOB 16.03.1953) by
profession - Retired School Teacher, (M):
9804514290, Ε. [email protected]
2. Sri Avisek Das son of late Dr. Dhurjati Prasad
Das aged about 44 years (DOB 18.10.1979) by
profession - Unemployed, (M) 9804514290,
E.Mail- [email protected]
Both of them residing at 30/3, Brindaban Mallick
Lane, Haroa, Dist. Howrah, West Bengal, Pin -
711101.
....... Applicants.
-versus-
1. Union of India, service through the Director
General, ICAR and the Secretary, Department of
Agricultural Research and Education (DARE)
Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, Dr. R. P.
Road, New Delhi - 111001,
2. The Director (Personnel), Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, Dr. R. P.
Road, New Delhi - 111001.
3. The Director, Central Research Institute of Jute
and Allied Fibres, Nilganj, P.O. Barrackpore,
District 24 Parganas (North), Pin - 700120.
4. The Chief Administrative Officer, I.C.A.R. Central
Research Institute of Jute and Allied Fibres,
Nilganj, P.O. Barrackpore, District 24 Parganas
(North), Pin - 700120.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. 738 of 2023
5. The Assistant Administrative officer, I.C.A.R.
Central Research Institute of Jute and Allied
Fibres, Nilganj, P.O Barrackpore, District 24
Parganas (North), Pin 700120.
...... Respondents
For the Applicants : Mr. J.R. Das (Counsel)
For the Respondents : Mr. B. Kumar (Counsel)
ORDER
Per Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is involved this matter is taken up for disposal.
2. The applicants have approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following common relief(s):
"i) An order directing the respondents to cancel, rescind, withdraw or set aside the purported order dated 18.01.2018 and or any contradictory order thereafter;
ii) An order directing the respondents to cancel, withdraw, rescind or set aside the purported order dated 23.04.2003 forthwith;
iii)An order directing the respondents to grant the service benefits like salary, other consequential benefits, pensionary benefits including family pension to his widow forthwith with statutory interests thereon;
iv) To pass necessary appropriate order for grant of interest for the said arrears of salaries and other consequential benefits @ 9.5% forthwith;
v) An order directing the respondents to produce entire records of the case with copy to the Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant for conscionable justice;Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O.A. 738 of 2023
vi) Any other order/orders, further order/orders as to this Hon'ble Tribunal may seem fit and proper."
3. Facts of the case as narrated by the applicants are as follows:
The applicants' husband/father was appointed as a Scientist in ICAR on 28.09.1976. He served in the organisation till 29/12/1991 after which he did not attend office. Even during his service period, he took leave or absented himself without sanctioned leave for long periods. Since 1992, the applicants' husband/father filed several cases in the Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court mainly praying for payment of salary and other monetary dues to him. His pleas were dismissed by the Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble High Court. The respondents in the meantime issued an order on 23.04.2003 notifying that the applicant's husband having absented himself from work continuously since 29/12/1991 was deemed to have resigned from service.
The applicant's husband made a representation to the respondents for payment of salary arrears and service benefits for the period he had served in the organisation. He followed it up by filing an O.A No. 547 of 2016 in this Tribunal which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.11.2017 by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and issue a speaking order within a period of 2 months. Respondents issued a speaking order dated 18.01.2018 rejecting the claim of the applicant on the ground that he was deemed to have resigned with effect from 29/12/1991 as per order dated 23.04.2003. The applicant has filed this O.A challenging the speaking order dated 18.01.2018 and the order dated 23.04.2003.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that the Office Order dated 23.04.2003 was passed by the respondents without due proceedings of any proceedings thereof. No notice was served upon the applicant and no enquiry Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A. 738 of 2023 was held to that effect and no opportunity was given to the applicant to extend his engagement in the said period. The reason for rejection of the service benefits was not explained to the applicant rather the respondents has removed the applicant in hot haste without due process of law and in terms of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the applicant has not been given any opportunity before the impugned order was passed although the applicant has served the office of the respondents since 1976 to 1991.
Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that the office order dated 23.04.2003 was issued with ulterior motive in order to vitiate the proceedings that were undergoing before the Tribunal in OA No. 1197 of 1996 and the Misc. Application No. 311 of 1996 and the said office Order dated 23.04.2003 was non- statutory order having по mention of rules under which it was issued. Director (Respondent No. 3) who was not the competent authority to pass the said order but only the controlling authority and even while passing the impugned order dated 23.04.2003, the respondents did not disclose who the competent authority is and what his designation is and the said order dated 23.04.2003 is highly improper, illegal because the salary and other benefits remains withheld since the month of December, 1991.
Ld. Counsel for the applicants submits that the respondent authority in their speaking order dated 18/01/2018 made 180° turn from their earlier stand that his case for pensionary benefits is under process and the decision of the competent authority will be intimated to him in due course.
5. The applicants in para 5 of the O.A has taken the following grounds in support of their contention.
i) Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta passed order to the effect in CAN 9203 of 2013 in RVW 5 of 2011 in WPCT 189 of 2006 that it will be open to the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A. 738 of 2023 applicant to take steps for recovery of his dues. In accordance with the said order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 21.02.2014, the applicant made representation on 10.03.2014 but till date the respondents did not pay any heed to his representation.
ii) The Hon'ble High Court did not express any opinion with regard to the rejection of the service of the applicant dated 23.04.2003.
iii) In the service rules there is no mention of any word 'deemed to have been resigned' it should be an order of either removal or dismissal or termination of service but it has to be done by giving full chance/opportunity to the applicant before passing any final order.
iv) Pension benefit of the applicant's husband has been denied even when he has actually rendered qualifying service of 11 yrs 11 months 13 days as accepted by the said respondent authority. He never tendered his resignation and should have been paid regular pension and pensionary benefits as per extant rules.
v) Non-application of mind is patent on the face of the records and it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
vi) The authorities concerned acted in flagrant disregard to the rules of the principles of natural and procedural justice as also the extant rules of the Government.
vii) When statute requires something to be done in a particular manner the same is to be done in that manner alone and any other mode of performance and/or deviation therefrom is strictly forbidden by law.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant and her husband for the purpose of harassing the respondents have filed one case after another.
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A. 738 of 2023 Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the dismissal of the earlier cases filed by him in the Tribunal and in the Hon'ble High Court, it is not open for the applicant to make representation but the husband of the applicant had made representation before the authorities concerned for payment of all the dues and interest vide letter dated 10.03.2014. After dismissal of all the petitions by the Hon'ble Tribunal and by the Hon'ble High Court, the husband of the applicant again approached this Tribunal in OA No. 547 of 2016 for self-same relief.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that as per direction of this Tribunal, the competent Authority has considered the case of the husband of the applicant and rejected the same.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has no right to approach any court for self-same cause of action when the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1197/1996 & MA No. 311/1996 has already decided that for unauthorized absence from duty, the husband of the applicant is not entitled to any wages and this order passed by the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in W.P.C.T. No. 189 of 2006 and R.V.W.T. No. 5 of 2011. The husband of the applicant has filed contempt petition before the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta being CPAN 1305 of 2016. After hearing, the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to dismiss the Contempt.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the relief sought by applicant in instant Original Application is bad, misconceived and hit by well settled principle of res-judicata because issue raised in this OA and relief sought have already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble CAT vide its Order dated 30.11.2004 in OA No. 1197 of 1996 & ΜΑ 311 of 1996.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that husband of petitioner, Dr. Dhurjati Prasad Das, had joined as Scientist (S-1) Plant Breeding on 28th Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A. 738 of 2023 September, 1976 at ICAR-Central Research Institute for Jute & Allied Fibres and posted at one of its regional station i.e. Sisal Research Station, Bamra, Odisha and was in the Service up to forenoon of 29th December, 1991. Dr. Das absented himself frequently from his duties in an unauthorised manner since the date of his joining and never reported for duty after 28.12.1991. During his study leave period, applicant's guide Prof. S. Sen was also contacted for whereabouts of the applicant as letters sent to the applicant at his guide's address were returned undelivered. The guide informed that he was not getting any information regarding whereabouts of the applicant. Dr. Das remained absent for several spells and taking lenient view, the Competent Authority granted him leave from time to time. But, he habitually remained absent and for his unauthorized absence from 01.01.86 to 22.08.86 "Censure" was imposed on Dr. Das for this period. Dr. Das again remained unauthorisedly absent from 21.12.87 to 15.11.90 which was treated as dies-non vide Office Order dated 19.10.91. Frequent unauthorized absence of Dr. Das from duty proves that he was a habitual absentee from duties. Some of his absence were regularized by granting EOL but he continued to remain absent unauthorizedly from duties which hampered the research work of the Institute. In spite of several warning and repetition of penalties, the applicant did not improve and after 28.12.91, he did not report for duty at all. Thus, it had been established that the applicant had abandoned his services by not reporting for duty since 29.12.1991. After considering his prolonged unauthorized absence and misconduct of the applicant, the Competent Authority of ICAR had decided that Dr. D. P. Das deemed to have resigned from service with effect from the date of he proceeded on leave.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that as per CCS Leave Rules 12 (1) and 12 (2), no Government Servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. 738 of 2023 continuous period of 5 years. Normally, absence from duty, with or without leave, for a continuous period exceeding 5 years other than on foreign service, implies that such Government servant has deemed to have resigned from Government service.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the order dated 23.04.2003 has been passed by the Competent Authority of ICAR. The Director, CRIJAF has only communicated the order passed by the Competent Authority. The authority has rightly passed the order under existing rules and regulation. It is an incorrect statement that no opportunity was given to the applicant before passing the order. The applicant was given reasonable opportunity from time to time while granting leave and by imposing penalty of censor and dies-non and he was asked to take extreme care in fulfilling official rules while proceeding on leave in future. He was informed that repetition of taking any sort of unauthorized leave or taking leave not due to him will be viewed seriously and will attract penal measure as envisaged under conduct rules.
7. The applicants have filed their rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents and have reiterated their arguments made in the O.A. From the records, it is seen that both the parties have filed additional papers like reply to the rejoinder and additional rejoinder to the reply to the rejoinder. In addition, written notes of arguments by both the parties have also been filed and taken on record. The moot points made by the parties in their O.A, reply, rejoinder and in subsequent filings including their written notes or arguments and during hearing have been summarised above as part of their respective submissions.
8. Heard. Perused material on record.
9. Husband/father of the applicants was a Government employee who served in ICAR from 1976 to 1991. During this period, he was absent from duty on Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. 738 of 2023 several occasions with and without sanction. The employee admittedly never reported for work after 29.12.1991. He filed several cases in the Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal. None of these cases, however, dealt with the issue of his deemed resignation notified vide order dated 23.04.2003. The employee represented against the order dated 23.04.2003 and filed an O.A No. 547 of 2016 claiming his salary and other dues. Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his representation and if found eligible, to pay his dues vide its order dated 13.11.2017. The respondents passed a speaking order dated 18/01/2018 denying the claim of the applicant in O.A No. 547/2016 who passed away on 17/01/2022.
His wife and son, being his heirs have filed this O.A impugning the speaking order dated 18/01/2018 and the order dated 23/04/2003 and claiming pensionary dues, other settlement dues as well as family pension. We do not agree with the respondents that this O.A is barred by res judicata as the matter of the applicant's husband/father has not been adjudicated in any of the previous cases.
Denial of the claim of the applicants by the respondents is based on their decision that the ex-employee having absented himself from duty for more than 5 years was deemed to have resigned from the date he last attended office. In case of such resignation, the employee forfeited his past service as per rules and he is not entitled to any dues on account of the service rendered by him in the past.
10. It is the applicant's case that their husband/father was not given any opportunity to explain his position before the order of his deemed resignation was passed. This being in violation of the rules as well as of principles of natural justice, the order dated 23.04.2003 and all subsequent orders are legally unsustainable. It is also the contention of the applicants that the said order was Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A. 738 of 2023 passed by an incompetent authority and the order does not contain reference to any rule or provision under which it was passed rendering it void.
Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 is reproduced below:
"12. Maximum amount of continuous leave.
(1) No Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years.
(2) Unless the President, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, otherwise determines, a Government servant who remains absent from duty for a continuous period exceeding five years other than on foreign service, with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from the Government service:
Provided that a reasonable opportunity to explain the reasons for such absence shall be given to that Government servant before provisions of sub-rule (2) are invoked.
Provided that this rule shall not apply to a case where is leave is applied on medical certificate, in connection with a disability."
11. It is not in dispute that husband/father of the applicants was absent from work since 29/12/1991 and that he never resumed his duty thereafter. It is the applicants' argument that the employee was busy with cases in the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court since 1992 on service related matters. However, it is seen from the records that there was no order or direction from any Court on him not to join work nor was he prevented in any manner from joining his duty during the pendency of the cases. Moreover, all these cases were filed by him and their pendency cannot be an excuse for not reporting for duty. Therefore, after a lapse of five years from 29/12/1991, since he was continuously absent from work, the above quoted rule 12(2) is rightly attracted.
12. The applicants have averred that the employee was not granted any opportunity to explain his conduct before the order to treat him as deemed to have resigned was taken. The decision to treat the employee's case as deemed Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O.A. 738 of 2023 resignation was taken more than 10 years after the date of commencement of his continuous absence from work. During this period, the applicant had ample opportunity to explain the reasons for his absence as he was continuously engaged in legal battle with his employers on the same issue. He was also given several opportunities in the past not only to explain his absence but also to improve his conduct. In my opinion, the employee was given adequate and reasonable opportunity to explain his conduct before action was taken to treat him as having resigned from government service in accordance with CCS (Leave) Rules. The respondents have clarified that the decision contained in the letter dated 23.04.2003 was merely conveyed under the Director's signature. The decision itself was actually taken by the competent authority i.e. the Council.
13. The competent authority took the decision in accordance with the statutory rules. These rules do not mandate that the rules under which such order is passed has to be quoted in the order conveying the decision. It is desirable for the sake of transparency that a rule under which a decision is taken is communicated along with the decision. However, mere absence of mention of such rule does not render the order illegal or invalid. Moreover, the employee being an educated government servant is himself expected to be aware of the rules governing his service condition.
14. I, therefore, find that the decision of the respondents to treat the employee as deemed to have resigned after a continuous absence from work for more than 5 years does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The speaking order dated 18/01/2018 is based on the order of 23/04/2003. Having held that the order of 23/04/2003 is valid and that the employee was rightly deemed to have resigned w.e.f 29/12/1991, it is further held that the employee forfeited his past Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 O.A. 738 of 2023 service and was not entitled to any service benefits including pensionary benefits and family pension upon his resignation from service.
15. O.A is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) Member (A) DB Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.04 18:04:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0