Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Neeraj Bishnoi vs Pr Director Of Audit North Western ... on 27 February, 2026
OA No. 121/2024 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 121/2024
Order Reserved on: 16.02.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 27.02.2026
CORAM
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. LOK RANJAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Neeraj Bishnoi son of Late Shri S.P. Bishnoi, aged about 53
years, resident of Railway Qtr. No. 1494, Srinagar Road,
Ajmer-305001, Rajasthan. Earlier working as Senior Auditor,
o/o Deputy Director (Audit), Ajmer.
Group 'B' post.
Mob. 9414220447
Email: [email protected]
Subject: Resignation
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for the applicant.
VERSUS
1. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Pocket-9,
Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi-110124.
2. Principal Director, Audit, North Western Railway,
Headquarter Office, Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan.
3. Deputy Director, Audit, North Western Railway,
Headquarter Office, Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur-302017- Rajasthan.
.... Respondents
Shri Manu Bhargava, counsel for respondents
ORDER
Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying for the following reliefs: -
NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 2 "It is, therefore, prayed that the present original application made by the applicant may kindly be allowed. The impugned order dt. 29.01.2024 (Annex-A/1) and 22.02.2024 (Annex-A/2) may kindly be quashed and set aside. The respondents may be directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits. The order imposing damage rent may further be quashed and set-aside. Any other relief or direction which this learned Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of applicant.
Cost of original application may kindly be awarded in favour of humble applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that while he was working on the post of Senior Auditor, he decided to contest the election of Legislative Assembly held in the month of November, 2023. As such, he tendered his resignation on 10.10.2023 with the object to participate in the election of Legislative Assembly. On 01.11.2023, his resignation was accepted. He contested the election for Legislative Assembly held in the month of November, 2023 on the ticket of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Upon losing the aforesaid election, the applicant moved an application with the respondents for his reinstatement in service or in the alternate to release his pension benefits. The respondents rejected his claim for reinstatement in service vide order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure A/1) citing Rule 26 (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 as well as Rule 3 (1) (vii) and Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964; against which, the applicant filed representation dated 19.02.2024. The respondents rejected NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 3 the same vide order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure A/2) mainly on two grounds; (i) that as per mandate of Rule 26 (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, the appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest, if the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some "compelling reasons" and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation and (ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date of request for withdrawal of the same, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper for which they have cited Rule 3 (1) (vii) and Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. So the applicant filed the present O.A. mainly seeking reinstatement in service.
3. The respondents in their reply have reiterated the reasons they have cited to reject his application as well as representation seeking withdrawal of his resignation and they have further added in their reply that the applicant had tendered his resignation to contest the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Election, 2023 which he contested, as such, there were no new facts or material changes in the circumstances because of which he had resigned in the first place. Besides, they have stated that as per Rule 26 of CCS (Pension) Rules, NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 4 2021, the resignation can be allowed to be withdrawn in public interest only.
4. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
5. The issue in short is whether a public servant who tenders resignation from Government service in order to participate in the election on the ticket of a political party and his resignation is accepted; upon which he contests the election and after being unsuccessful, if subsequently withdraws his resignation, the competent authority is bound to accept the same?
6. The relevant Rules invoked by the respondents in order to reject application as well as representation of the applicant for withdrawal of his resignation are reproduced below:-
"Rule 26 (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021:
26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.-
XXXXX (5) The appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest on the following conditions, namely:-
(i) that the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some compelling reasons which did not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and the request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation ;
(ii) that during the period intervening between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 5 which the request for withdrawal was made, the conduct of the person concerned was in no way improper;
XXXXX"
""Rule 3(1)(vii) and Rule 5(1) & (4) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. General (1) Every Government servant shall at all times--
XXXXX
(vii) maintain political neutrality;
5. Taking part in politics and elections (1) No Government servant shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organisation which takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.
XXXXX (4) No Government servant shall canvass or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority:
XXXXX"
7. From perusal of the above, it emerges that -
(i) Rule 26 (5) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 states that "appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation, which means the appointing authority is not bound to permit the withdrawal of resignation. In other words, the appointing authority has to apply mind, look into and assess the circumstances of resignation as well as withdrawal;
NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 6
(ii) The appointing authority may accept withdrawal of resignation in "public interest". In other words, in arriving at the decision "public interest" is to be the prime factor;
(iii) The withdrawal of resignation may be accepted by the appointing authority if the resignation was tendered by the public servant for some "compelling reasons";
(iv) The request for withdrawal of resignation is made as a result of a ""material change" in the circumstances which "originally compelled" him to tender the resignation and
(v) During the intervening period between the date on which the resignation became effective and the date from which the request for withdrawal is made, the conduct of the person was in no way improper.
As per Rule 3(1)(vii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, every Government servant shall at all times maintain political neutrality. Rule 26 (5)(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 categorically prohibits the Government servant any political association with any political party NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 7 or any organization which takes part in politics and any political activity by the public servant. Rule 26 (5)(4) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 speaks that no Government servant shall canvass or interfere with or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority.
8. In the present case, the applicant tendered his resignation on the specific ground i.e. to take part in the Legislative Assembly Election, which was to be held in the month of 2023 in the State of Rajasthan and he actually participated in the election but he lost the election and thereafter on realizing that in view of his resignation, he would not be entitled to pension/retiral benefits, he requested for withdrawal of his resignation.
9. Rule 26 (5)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 clearly stipulates that the appointing authority may permit a person to withdraw his resignation in the public interest if the resignation was tendered by the Government servant for some "compelling reasons" and withdrawal was requested as a result of "material change" in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender his resignation. In the present case, there were no "compelling reasons". It was deliberated choice which a Government servant made NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 8 between continuing in the Government service or to join politics and acting on his choice he contested the elections. As per aforesaid Rule, the request for withdrawal of the resignation can be considered only if there was a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled the public servant to tender the resignation. Now even if for arguments sake, the "compelling reasons" in the present case are accepted at the time of resignation then this remains a fact that those circumstances which original compelled him to tender resignation cannot be said to have changed because the reason for which he resigned was to participate in the election and he actually participated in the election, so the circumstances and the reasons available at the time of resignation did not change because he had actually acted upon it. Subsequent to tendering the resignation; losing the election being a later circumstance, cannot be said to be a circumstance existing at the time of resignation. So we agree with the respondents in invoking and relying upon the above cited Rule 26 (5)(i) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
10. Now coming to the second reason taken by the respondents in rejecting the request of the applicant for withdrawal of his resignation that the conduct of the Government servant during the period intervening between the date of his resignation and request for withdrawal of NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 9 resignation, was in no way proper. The respondents have held his involvement in political activity as a conduct 'improper' for a public servant in the light of Rule 3(1)(vii) and Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (reproduced in preceding paras). There is no denial that the applicant in fact participated in the political activity and was associated with BSP, which is a registered political party and the applicant was official candidate of BSP as he contested the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Election, 2023 from Ratangarh on the party ticket. Now here the applicant is trying to wriggle out of this provision by articulating that when he contested the election, he was no longer a public servant as he had tendered his resignation, which had already become effective from 01.11.2023, and that was prior to his contesting the election. In other words, he is trying to say that his participation in political activity after his resignation does not fall under the purview of Rule 26 (5) (ii) of CCS (Pension) Rule, 2021 read with Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The law makers have clearly shown their intention in aforesaid Rule 26 (5) (ii) when they have clearly flagged the period intervening between the date of resignation and the request for withdrawal of the same and have laid down how the conduct of the public servant should be in that intervening period by stipulating that the conduct during this period is not NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 10 to be "improper". It means, the conduct during the period after the resignation is also to be considered before considering the acceptance of withdrawal of resignation and improper conduct definitely refers to the conduct expected of a Government servant as per Rule 3 (1) (vii) and Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 when the consequence of acceptance of withdrawal of resignation is restoration of the Government service which means continuity of Government service as if there was no break in service then the only interpretation can be that the Government servant continued to work as if he was in Government service throughout the period, so his conduct for this whole period has to as per the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
11. What a Government servant could not have done while being in Government service, he cannot do it "during the period of restored service" because on acceptance of withdrawal of resignation, it is not a fresh appointment; it is continuity of the employment. Since the political activity has specifically been forbidden for the Government servant, as per service rules, indulging in the same during the period which is being sought to be treated as 'restored', amounts to "improper conduct" as envisaged under Rule 26 (5) (ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021.
NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 11
12. Now coming to Rule 3 (1) (vii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 which specifically mandates the Government servant to "ow maintain "political neutrality" "at all times'. The law makers have framed Rule 3 in addition to Rule 5 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The object of law makers framing aforesaid Rule 3 in addition to Rule 5 cannot be missed. Rule 5 prohibits "political activity" and Rule 3 mandates "political neutrality".
13. The applicant, who had joined a political party, indulged in political actively, participated in the political activity and even contested election, owing allegiance to the manifesto as well as ideology of a political party, as such, cannot remain politically neutral and, thus, is against true letter and spirit of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which specifically not only forbids political activity but also seek political neutrality that too at all times.
14, Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2023 passed in the case of The Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Kamlesh Rani Bhatla [Civil Appeal No. 1927/2023 - arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2139/2021]. In the aforesaid case, the Government employee had also resigned from service and participated in NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 12 election for the post of a Counsellor of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. On losing the election, she also applied for withdrawing of a resignation which was rejected by her department only on the ground that the Memorandum of Charges had been issued against her and there were no other ground. Some of the relevant extracts of the above mentioned judgment dated 23.03.2023 are reproduced below: -
"13. After the High Court sustained the Tribunal's verdict which went in favour of the respondent, on 28" November 2019, the Division Bench judgment in the case of Manisha Sharma (supra) was delivered. In this judgment, the Division Bench, on analysing the conditions specified in Rule 26(4) found that having resigned to contest the election, the respondent therein could not be heard to say that she was under compulsion. It was also held that once the resignation has been accepted and acted upon, then there is no question of permitting a person to withdraw such a resignation. In the facts of the present case, however, that ground was not invoked to reject the respondent's withdrawal request herein. Moreover, the parameter based on which the authorities were asked to take decision on the request for withdrawal of resignation was laid down by the High Court itself. The boundary within which the authorities were to examine the incumbent's plea was not questioned by the authorities before any forum. On the other hand, they accepted the said parameter and rejected the plea thereby confining their consideration within the boundary demarcated by the High Court.
14. In our opinion, in the context of this case, the ratio of Manisha Sharma (supra) cannot be made applicable. We accept, as a proposition of law, the interpretation given to the Rule 26(4) by the Division Bench in the said judgment. But in the case of the respondent herein, her withdrawal plea was required to be examined within a given parameter and since the employer never challenged the direction laying down the scope within which they were to consider the withdrawal plea of the respondent, the right of the respondent to be considered within that parameter had crystallised. The authorities could not, and did not, go beyond that parameter.
15. Now the question arises as to whether we could import additional reasoning into the decision of the employer on the basis of interpretation given to said Rule 26(4) by the High Court subsequent in point of time. Ultimately, what we are dealing with in this appeal is a decision of an employer terminating the master-
NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 13 servant relationship on the basis of certain grounds laid down in the rejection order. xxxxx So far as the present case is concerned, resignation can become effective only on acceptance thereof and sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 lays down situations in which there can be withdrawal even after resignation becomes effective. This question, however, does not arise here as what we are examining in this judgment is legality of an order by which the respondent's plea for withdrawal of resignation was rejected on grounds spelt out in the order itself. xxxxx."
So the facts of the present case being different, the applicant cannot set the benefits of the abovementioned judgment.
15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 28.11.2019 passed in the case of Directorate of Education vs. Manisha Sharma - W.P. (C) No. 8494/2015 wherein the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Haryana vs. Ram Kumar Mann, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 as well as the judgment of Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (1998) 119 PLR 448 have been considered. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Directorate of Education vs. Manisha Sharma (supra) is reproduced below: -
"13. None of the conditions spelt out in Rule 26 (4) (i) to (iv) of the CCS (Pension) Rules stand attracted in the present case. There is no "material change" in the circumstances which originally NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 14 compelled the Respondent to tender her resignation. In the present case, the Respondent voluntarily resigned because she wanted to contest elections. Unless she resigned, she would not have been qualified to contest elections. Having resigned, and on that basis having contesting the election, she cannot be heard to say that she was under any compulsion. Once the resignation has been accepted and acted upon, there is no question of permitting a person who resigned to withdraw such a resignation. It is a different matter if after having resigned, the Respondent did not contest the MCD elections at all and in those circumstances sought to rejoin service by seeking to withdraw her resignation.
XXXXX
15. In State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (supra), it was held that merely because the government may have permitted some people to withdraw their resignations would not per se give the right to another person to seek to withdraw a resignation that had already been acted upon. It was observed as under:
"3. The question, therefore, is: whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law? It is seen that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service and the resignation was accepted by the Government on May 18, 1982. On and from that date, the relationship of employer and the employee between the respondent and the State ceased and thereafter he had no right, whatsoever, either to claim the post or a right to withdraw his resignation which had already became effective by acceptance on May 18, 1982. It may be that the Government for their own reasons, given permission in similar case, to some of the employees mentioned earlier, to withdraw their resignations and had appointed them. The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing mis-appropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similar circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? Answer is obviously "No". In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. As stated earlier, his right must be founded upon enforceable right to entitle lion to the equality treatment for enforcement thereof. A wrong decision by the Government does not give NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 15 a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never made a right. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits."
XXXXX
17. It must be noted here that following the aforementioned decision in State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann (supra), a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Haryana (1998) 119 PLR 448, in reference to the interpretation of Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, which is in pari materia with Rule 26 (4) of the of the CCS (Pension) Rules observed as under:
"10. A reading of the aforesaid rule would indicate that in a given case if the resignation is tendered by the Government employee for some compelling reasons, which do not involve any reflection on his integrity, efficiency or conduct and a request for withdrawal of resignation is made as a result of material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation, the Government may in a given case on being satisfied that the aforesaid grounds had existed, may allow the withdrawal of resignation after the same has been accepted. The question is -Whether submitting of resignation for the purpose of contesting an election is a compelling reason? According to us, the answer has to be in the negative. After a person has decided that he wishes to leave the Government service to join politics and for that purpose decides to contest the election would in our mind amount to that the person is no more interested in the Government service and is rather interested in politics. Even the Conduct Rules provide that a Government servant would not indulge in politics while in Government service. The point as framed by the Admitting Bench came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Rajinder Bhushan v. State of Punjab (supra). The Counsel for the petitioner, Rajinder Bhushan in the aforesaid case had contended that his client fulfilled all the requirements of Rule 7.5(4) (supra) and, therefore, there was no reason as to why the request of his client for withdrawing the resignation after the same had been accepted should not have been allowed. incidentally, it may be observed that the facts of Rajinder Bhushan's case (supra) were pari-materia to the facts of the present case. A contention was also raised that in some other similar cases the Government had granted permission to withdraw the resignation after the same had been accepted. It was observed by the Division Bench as under:
"9. We do not accept the contention of Mr. Malik. A careful reading of the above rule shows that the guiding principle underlying the above rule is public interest. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (4) further shows NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 16 that the rule has been framed in order to deal with cases of resignation which a Government employee has submitted "for some compelling reasons" and "request for withdrawal of the resignation has been made as a result of a material change in the circumstances which originally compelled him to tender the resignation." Sub-clause (ii) further gives an indication that in the interregnum period i.e. from the resignation till the date on which request for withdrawal is made, the conduct of the person was in no way improper. We find it almost impossible to hold that contesting the State Assembly elections would amount to a compelling reason for submitting the resignation within the meaning of the above rule. In our view, it would be ridiculous that a Government servant submits resignation, contests the State Assembly elections and on losing the same reports back and insists that he shall be taken back into service with continuity as referred to in sub-rule (6) reproduced above. Nor cap the conduct of an officer to contest elections while being in Government service be considered to be not improper ...."
18. It was further held in paragraph 15 as under:
"15. The only reason which has been given by the petitioner for submitting resignation was that he wanted to contest the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly. This cannot be said to be a compelling or over-whelming reason to submit the resignation. After the same is accepted, the incumbent has to show that the resignation may be allowed to be withdrawn as he had submitted his resignation under some compelling circumstances. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the compelling circumstances have to be for withdrawing the resignation after the same has been accepted. We do not agree with the learned Counsel. According to our considered view, the petitioner, who alleges himself to be belonging to a poor family i.e. being a member of Scheduled Caste and is wholly and solely dependent on his service, would not have, as a reasonable and prudent person, thought of resigning his service only for the purpose of contesting the election. At least this ground could not be accepted to be covered under the expression "over-whelming/compelling reasons." As observed above, the compelling/over-whelming reasons are to be seen at the time the incumbent puts in his resignation."
19. In the present case as well, there were indeed no compelling circumstances for the Respondent to have submitted her resignation, except that she wanted to contest elections." NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT Reason: your signing reason here KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30' OA No. 121/2024 17
16. In the present case too, we find no compelling circumstances for the applicant to have tendered his resignation except that he wanted to contest the election and there is also no material change in the circumstances, which originally compelled him to tender the resignation as he had already acted upon the circumstances/reasons on which he originally sought resignation.
17. In view of the above observations and discussions, we do not find any merit in the present Original Application and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present Original Application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
NATHU LAL Digitally signed by NATHU LAL KUMAWAT
Reason: your signing reason here
KUMAWAT Date: 2026.03.02 11:18:24+05'30'