Karnataka High Court
Sri D Anappa vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., on 13 June, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
W.P.No.49692/2016 (S-R)
BETWEEN:
SRI ANAPPA
S/O LATE SRI. DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
NO.49, BSK III STAGE,
7TH MAIN, 7TH BLOCK,
'E' CROSS, 4TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 085.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KESHAVA BHAT A, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ORIENTAL HOUSE, NO.A25/27,
ASAF ALI ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110002.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING
DIRECTOR
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE-560025.
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE-560025.
4. DISTRICT CASE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
2
AND MEMBER SECRETARY
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
16TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD
SAMPANGI RAMANAGARA
BENGALURU-27.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI E S INDIRESH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3
SRI C JAGADEESH, SPL.GA. FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE ALL THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS
TO THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH WITH 16% INTEREST FROM
THE DATE OF RETIREMENT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 07/06/2018, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to release the terminal benefits to the petitioner with interest from the date of retirement till the date of payment.
2. The petitioner joined the services of respondent No.1 on 16.06.1979 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2012. The petitioner who had been issued a caste certificate dated 31.08.1978, depicting him as belonging to 'Jenu Kuruba' caste had relied on the same for the purpose of appointment. 3 Though there was no issue relating to the same throughout, about ten days prior to his retirement the petitioner was issued a suspension order dated 20.12.2012. The suspension order was assailed before this Court in W.P. No. 2888-2890/2012, which did not yield a conclusion since the petitioner retired in the meanwhile and as such the petitions were rendered infructuous.
3. In that light the petitioner filed a fresh petition in W.P. No.37905/2012 seeking direction to the employer to release the terminal benefits. A consideration of the request by the employer if there was no legal impediment was ordered. On consideration, the employer through their letter dated 12.12.2012 declined the request on the ground that the issue relating to the caste certificate was pending before the competent authority. The said communication was assailed in W.P.No.46918/2013, but this Court on noticing the pendency of the proceedings relating to the caste certificate disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to await the result of such proceeding. 4 The competent authority, namely the District Caste Verification Committee ('CVC' for short) has concluded the proceedings through its order dated 16.05.2015 holding that the caste certificate has already been surrendered and in such event the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit under the Government Order dated 11.03.2002. Hence, it is held therein that no further action is required against the petitioner and directed payment of his terminal benefits. Despite the said order and the demand made by the petitioner by serving a legal notice, the terminal benefits are not paid and therefore the petitioner is before this Court in this petition.
4. The respondents No.1 to 3 have filed their objection statement. In so far as the earlier proceedings and the order dated 16.05.2015 passed by the CVC there is no quarrel. The contention however is that the respondent No.1 is regulated by the Central Government and as such the benefit of the order dated 11.03.2002 passed by the State Government will not be available to its employees. Therefore, the action initiated 5 against the petitioner is sought to be justified and it is contended that the non disbursal of the terminal benefits is also as per law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the benefit of the Government Order dated 11.03.2002 will not be available, also for the reason that the petitioner did not surrender the caste certificate soon thereafter but only in 2015. In that view it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the terminal benefits as claimed in the petition.
5. In the backdrop of the rival contentions, I have heard Sri A.Keshava Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. E.S.Indiresh, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3, Sri. C.Jagadish, learned Special Government Advocate for respondent No. 4 and perused the petition papers.
6. Before adverting to any other aspect that may be necessary herein, at the outset on taking note of the nature of the rival contentions relating to the point at which the caste certificate was issued to the petitioner 6 herein i.e., dated 31.08.1978, the State Government itself having passed the order dated 11.03.2002 providing certain clarification and benefit and also as to whether the benefit of such order of the State Government can be made available to an employee who is working in an establishment which is regulated by the Central Government, I am of the opinion that it will not be necessary for me to duplicate the consideration since I had made a detailed consideration of the very same aspect and answered it. Hence the more appropriate course will be to extract the same for better appreciation.
7. The said consideration made is in the case of Smt. Hemavathy -vs- The Director and Appellate Authority, Scheduled Tribes Welfare and Others (ILR 2016 Kar 3880), which reads hereunder;
5. In the backdrop of the subject matter involved, if the decisions in the case of State of Maharashtra -vs- Milind and others (AIR 2001 SC 393); in the case of Geeta -vs- State of M.P. and others ( 2007 AIR SCW 3892 ) ; in the case of Ritesh Tewari and another -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2010) 10 SCC 677] relied 7 on by the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 are taken into consideration, there can be absolutely no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down relating to disentitling a person from the benefit of a caste certificate which is falsely obtained. The position enunciated in the above referred decisions is that the Schedule Tribes Order can be amended only by the Parliament and allowing the candidates not belonging to Schedule Tribe to have the benefit or advantage of reservation either in admissions or appointments leads to making mockery of the very reservation against the mandate and scheme of the Constitution. In that view, if an order is bad at its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage and the illegality strikes at the root. Hence, if benefit is obtained illegally, that should be nullified.
6. However, the issue for consideration herein is as to whether the instant case is to be placed in such straight jacket and a decision is to be taken or as to whether it merits any other manner of consideration, if the contentions urged are kept in view. In that regard, the fact that the petitioner was issued with a caste certificate dated 14.01.1991 as belonging to 'Jenu Kuruba' and such certificate was relied on for the purpose of securing employment with respondent No.3 company is the undisputed position. Though there is some pleading in the memorandum of appeal filed before the first respondent and in this writ petition relating to 8 assertion made by the petitioner about the validity of the caste certificate as pointed out by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, the whole hog contention on behalf of the petitioner however is with reference to the Government order dated 11.03.2002 and in that light to claim benefit, since the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner and all her family members have been surrendered by her father as far back as on 23.05.2008.
7. The order dated 11.03.2002 is available at Annexure -D to the petition. A perusal of the same indicates that the Government of Karnataka in its proceedings has taken into consideration the benefit that was extended to the persons who belonged to the categories mentioned therein pending decision of the Government of India to treat them as synonyms for being considered as Schedule Tribe. The reference therein is also with regard to the persons belonging to 'Kuruba' community having obtained caste certificates as 'Jenu Kuruba (ST)' or 'Kadu Kuruba'. In that circumstance, on taking note of the position of law, the Government of Karnataka on realising that the benefit extended to the synonyms of the different castes was not appropriate, permitted such of the persons who had obtained the caste certificates as Schedule Tribe to surrender it to the issuing authority so as to cancel the same. The order further provides that in respect of appointments already made based on such certificates, such of those persons will not be eligible 9 for promotion or any other benefits as Schedule Tribe candidates in future. Thus the appointments were saved to be continued without the benefit or the advantages attached to the reserved post and it is such protection, the petitioner is seeking at present.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 has however placed reliance on the decision in the case of Additional General Manager-Human Resource, Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd. -vs- Suresh Ramkrishna Burde [(2007) 5 SCC 336] wherein the benefit of the order of Government of Maharashtra, dated 15.06.1995 was held as not being available to an employee of a public sector undertaking controlled by the Central Government. In that view, it is contended that the petitioner cannot claim the protection under the Government of Karnataka order dated 11.03.2002 as she was the employee of respondent No.3 which is also a public sector undertaking under the control of Central Government. The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 in that regard has further relied on the order dated 31.07.2012 passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.530/2007(GM-CC) wherein the very Government Order dated 11.03.2002 was not accepted to be applicable to an employee of a Central Government undertaking and the said order is shown to have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.138/2013.
10
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has relied on the decision in the case of Punjab National Bank and another -vs- Vilas [(2008) 14 SCC 545] wherein a similar contention with regard to the resolutions of the State Government not being applicable to the Central Government undertaking etc., was urged, but such contention was not accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further held therein that even otherwise the decision in Milind's case (supra) has provided such protection to save the appointment without the benefit of reserved post being extended for the future and a similar protection was given in that case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini -vs- New English High School Association and others [(2013) 16 SCC 526] wherein, after referring to all the precedents on the issue relating to caste certificate which include the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 noticed supra, it was concluded as follows;
"5. Almost one year later this very question, which has led to a deluge of litigation already, received the attention of a three- Judge Bench in Dattatray. The Respondent, claiming to belong to the Scheduled Tribe "Halba", was appointed as Assistant Professor of Psychiatry in G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi against a post reserved for Scheduled Tribes. A verification of 11 the Certificate of Scheduled Tribe disclosed that he did not belong to the Halba tribe. The second challenge to this finding, before the High Court, also proved to be futile. However, on what has been held to be a misinformed reading of the Constitution Bench decision in Milind, the High Court thought it fit to protect his service. The three-Judge Bench referred to two other decisions of this Court namely Bank of India v. Avinash D. Mandivikar (2005) 7 SCC 690 and BHEL v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (2007) 5 SCC 336 and noting that the employee had falsely claimed that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe/Halba, set aside the judgment of the High Court. Whilst it permitted settlement of employee- Doctor's terminal benefits it placed an embargo on his receiving any pensionary benefits. This conclusion was arrived at by the three-Judge Bench without noting State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay K. Nimje (2007) 14 SCC 481 where the impugned Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay directing the reinstatement of a person belonging to the 'Koshti' tribe, (not even 'Koshti- Halbas') was set aside.
6. It is evident that there is a plethora of precedents on this aspect of the law, and perhaps for this reason Counsel for the parties were remiss in drawing our attention in the present proceedings to the detailed judgment 12 in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 430, in which one of us, Thakur J, had analysed as many as eleven precedents including those discussed above. After reviewing all the judgments it was held, in the facts and circumstances of that case, that since that party had not intentionally or with dishonest intent fabricated particulars of a scheduled tribe with a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the matter of appointment, she was entitled to protection against ouster from service, but no other benefit.
7. X X X X X 7.1. X X X X X 7.2. X X X X X 7.3. This benefit accrues from the decision of this Court inter alia in Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar (2008) 9 SCC 54 which was rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Realising the likely confusion in the minds of even honest persons the Resolutions/Legislation passed by the State Governments should spare some succour to this section of persons. This can be best illustrated by the fact that it was in Milind that the Constitution Bench clarified that 'Koshtis' or 'Halba-Koshtis' were not entitled to claim benefits as Scheduled Tribes and it was the 'Halbas' alone who were so entitled. A perusal of 13 the judgment in Vilas by Sirpurkar J, as well as Solunke makes it clear that this protection is available by virtue of the decisions of this Court, it is not exclusively or necessarily predicated on any Resolution or Legislation of the State Legislature.
7.4. Where a Resolution or Legislation exists, its raison d'etre is that protection is justified in praesenti (embargo on removal from service or from reversion) but not in futuro (embargo on promotions in the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe).
8. X X X X X
9. It is not the intent of law to punish an innocent person and subject him to extremely harsh treatment. That is why this Court has devised and consistently followed that taxation statutes, which almost always work to the pecuniary detriment of the assessee, must be interpreted in favour of the assessee. Therefore, as we see it, on one bank of the Rubicon are the cases of dishonest and mendacious persons who have deliberately claimed consanguinity with Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes etc. whereas on the other bank are those marooned persons who honestly and correctly claimed to belong to a particular Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe but were later on found by the relevant Authority not to fall within the 14 particular group envisaged for protected treatment. In the former group, persons would justifiably deserve the immediate cessation of all benefits, including termination of services. In the latter, after the removal of the nebulousness and uncertainty, while the services or benefits already enjoyed would not be negated, they would be disentitled to claim any further or continuing benefit on the predication of belonging to the said Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
(emphasis supplied)
10. On being enlightened about the nature of consideration made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the different circumstances as narrated therein, it is time to examine and determine the bracket to which the case of the petitioner herein would fit. Notwithstanding the earlier assertion of the petitioner that she belonged to 'Jenu Kuruba' caste, it is also recorded in the impugned orders of respondents No. 1 and 2 herein that in view of the publication made in 'Vijaya Karnataka' newspaper on 06.04.2008 the family of the petitioner have surrendered the caste certificate. The reason however indicated in the impugned order to hold against the petitioner is that Ms. M.S.Savitha, the cousin of the petitioner was issued the validity certificate on 02.11.2008 as Category-2A- 'Kuruba' and that the husband of the petitioner Sri Ningaraju had stated that he belongs to 'Hori Kuruba'. As such 15 the petitioner cannot belong to 'Jenu Kuruba' caste is the conclusion.
11. The very nature of the consideration made by respondents No.1 and 2 would indicate that the family of the petitioner belonged to the 'Kuruba' caste, though not to the 'Jenu Kuruba' caste which alone is classified as a Schedule Tribe. If that be the position, the very fact that the petitioner belonged to a synonym regarding which there was a confusion at a point when it was under consideration and the authorities themselves were issuing the certificate in the circumstance as depicted in the preamble portion of the Government Order dated 11.03.2002 will be evident.
12. In that background, it is to be noticed that the father of the petitioner was issued with the 'Jenu Kuruba' caste certificate as far back as on 12.11.1972 and the siblings of the petitioner were also issued such caste certificates in the year 1980, 1991 and 1993 respectively. The petitioner was issued with the caste certificate on 14.01.1991, while the certificate of the cousin referred to in the impugned order as category 2A is at a point subsequent to the Government Order dated 11.03.2002, when a clear view had been taken at that juncture to the effect that the synonym castes will not be entitled to issue of caste certificate as Schedule Tribe but will be entitled to claim benefits under the respective category of Backward Class. If 16 that be the position, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as one where the petitioner despite being aware that she does not belong to Schedule Tribe had made a false declaration and obtained the caste certificate only for the purpose of securing an employment with a malafide intention to wrongfully usurp the benefit available to another person belonging to that category. On the other hand, her entire family had been given the benefit in the prevailing circumstance stated above and they had surrendered the certificates on the position being clarified.
13. It is no doubt true that as contended by the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, the surrender was made only on 23.05.2008 though the Government order is dated 11.03.2002. However, it cannot be lost sight that a notification for the information of the general public is made on 04.04.2008 in the newspaper (Annexure -G) and thereafter it has been surrendered. In all cases the concession provided is to save the admission or employment secured based on such caste certificate, but not the subsequent benefits attached to such post as a reserved post. No doubt the petitioner has committed the technical error of not informing the employer of this development and continued to justify the certificate produced, which probably is because the employer had by then despatched the certificate on 12.07.2005 for 17 considering its validity and a defence was put forth therein as a panic reaction.
14. Be that as it may, when the caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar who is an officer under the State Government and in that circumstance, as noticed above, it had been relied on by the Central Government undertaking, even if the Government Order dated 11.03.2002 is accepted as not binding in its strict sense as a direction issued to an authority who is not subordinate or is not under the control of the State Government, the nature of the consideration made in the Order explaining the circumstance under which the caste certificates were issued earlier and the extent to which the benefit of reservation is nullified subsequently, while saving only the appointment is a relevant material for the decision to be taken with regard to the continuation of the employment by denuding the status of Schedule Tribe when it is not a case of misrepresentation or playing fraud to obtain the caste certificate. Such protection of saving the appointment in any event has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earliest case relating to Milind (supra), which has been reiterated in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra). In that light, if the subsequent decision in the case of Shalini (supra) is kept in perspective, the case of the petitioner will qualify as that of a person marooned on the other bank of the Rubicon, as 18 expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the protection of saving the appointment will have to be extended to her. In fact, it is seen that the father of the petitioner was given employment based on the caste certificate issued in similar circumstance and in view of the Government Order dated 11.03.2002, such consideration was made by the employer- Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.,(Annexure-W) which is also a public sector undertaking under the control of the Central Government.
15. If in the light of the above discussion, the orders dated 11.11.2009 and 27.01.2014 are perused minutely, the ultimate conclusion by both the authorities is that the petitioner does not belong to 'Jenu Kuruba' but her caste is 'Kuruba', which is backward class Category- 2A. That in any event is the accepted position at this point in time, but in the circumstance explained above, despite such position the appointment of the petitioner would stand protected and saved, but without any benefits attached to the post reserved for Schedule Tribe. Hence, even in the teeth of the orders dated 11.11.2009 and 27.01.2014, the respondent No.3 employer was required to keep these aspects in view and was required to modulate the same as has been done by the employer of the petitioner's father.
16. Therefore, in that situation the order dated 11.11.2009 and 27.01.2014 though not 19 required to be set aside shall be read down to that effect by the respondent No.3 -employer and the employment be regulated in the terms as has been stated above in view of such protection being extended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of present nature. Since it is stated that the respondent No.3 instead of doing so has passed a dismissal order dated 14.01.2014 which is assailed in another petition in W.P.No.29850/2014, the directions relating to reinstatement and to regulate the employment is left open to be urged therein."
8. In the instant facts, it is no doubt true that the issue of the other family members being issued with caste certificate does not arise and it is also contended that the petitioner did not surrender his caste certificate soon after the 11.03.2002 Government Order was passed. However the same will not alter the situation since the certificate is of the same period when such certificates were bonafide being issued by the authorities and the petitioner is not shown to have derived any benefit by using the caste certificate after the position was clarified by the Government in the year 2002, though the specific surrender was made only in the year 2015. That apart in contradistinction to the 20 earlier case wherein the order of the competent authority was against the petitioner, in the instant case as noticed, the CVC which is the authority to decide the validity of the caste certificate has itself through the order dated 16.05.2015 taken note of the surrender of the caste certificate, the benefit in that background being available under the Government order dated 11.03.2002, held that no further action be taken by initiating criminal proceedings and has further directed the concerned authority to disburse the terminal benefits. This Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner herein, in W.P. No.46918/2013 had left the question open for consideration by the Social Welfare Department for adjudication over the caste certificate. The consideration and the direction in that regard is in favour of the petitioner and the same has attained finality, the benefit of which cannot now be denied by the respondents No.1 to 3 unilaterally.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 no doubt seeks to rely on the following decisions to justify the action to withhold the terminal benefits. The 21 case of Bharamappa Mukappa Hosamani -vs- The State of Karnataka (ILR 2017 Kar 3969) wherein the benefit of service obtained by fraud is denied. However, the said case is where the employee concerned had obtained the certificate as Bhovi community by falsely claiming to belong to that community and it is not a case considered in the circumstance as arising under the different castes as synonyms relating to which the Government Order dated 11.03.2002 was made. The case of J. Madegowda -vs- Addl. Director, CRE Cell and others (W.A. No. 16698/2011 dated 29.11.2012- DB) relied on by learned counsel for respondent is also not a case considered in the background of G.O. dated 11.03.2002.
10. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Sundarasan -vs- Union of India and another [(1995) 4 SCC 644] and in the case of FCI and others -vs- Jagdish Balaram Bahira (AIR 2017 SC 3271) relied by the learned counsel for respondents would also not be of assistance. In the first of the cases noted, on the allegation of false caste certificate, 22 departmental enquiry was held and despite opportunity he failed to prove his caste, therefore the long service was not considered as a saving grace. In the second of the decision, the validity of the enactment was considered and in that course the case of Madhuri Patil was taken note and has laid down with regard to cases of fraudulent caste certificates and the consequence of cancellation by CVC which would vitiate the entire service. The said cases are not arising in the background of benefit under G.O. dated 11.03.2002 and in the instant case the petitioner on the other hand has the benefit of the order of CVC in his favour. The decision in the case of Addl. General Manager, BHEL - vs- Suresh Ramkrishna Burde [(2007) 5 SCC 336] has been referred in the earlier case of Smt. Hemavathy (supra) and as such need not be adverted in detail. The decision in the case of Smt. Shoba Lakshmi -vs- Divisional Commissioner and others (W.A.No.530/ 2007 dated 31.07.2012) relied on by learned counsel for respondent has already been referred to in the inter se proceedings between the same parties in 23 W.P. No.46918/2013 and is held that that the same will not be of assistance and the contention in that regard cannot be countenanced. Hence a different conclusion does not arise at this stage.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in the case of K. Harishchandra -vs- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. passed by a co-ordinate bench in W.P. No. 2909/2015 dated 29.06.2016 wherein the case of Smt. Shoba Lakshmi (supra) is also referred and a direction is issued to pay the benefits. It is upheld by a Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A. No.3352/2016 dated 24.11.2016. The said decisions fortify the view that I have taken in the earlier case, which I have followed herein.
12. Hence, taking into consideration all the above aspects and keeping in perspective the order dated 16.03.2015 passed by the CVC, the prayer made in this petition is liable to be granted to pay the benefits. In so far as the interest claimed, this Court in the earlier 24 petition had approved the action of withholding and had made it subject to consideration of the caste certificate by CVC. The said order dated 16.03.2015 had directed payment and was not under challenge. Despite the same since the retirement benefits were not disbursed, the respondents No.1 to 3 are liable to pay interest on the retirement benefits at 6% p.a. from 16.03.2015 onwards till payment if the payment is made in a time frame, beyond which if not paid, the interest payable shall be at 12% p.a. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to pay the retirement benefits due to the petitioner with interest at 6% p.a. from 16.03.2015 till payment, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which it shall carry interest at 12% p.a. thereafter till payment. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms