Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
P K Sadanandan vs The Secretary Ministry Of ... on 4 January, 2022
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai Bench
O.A No.180/00403/2020
Tuesday, this the 04th day of January, 2022
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr.P.Madhavan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr.K.V.Eapen, Administrative Member
P.K.Sadanandan,
S/o. M.P.Narayanan Nambiar, aged 59 years,
Lower Selection Grade (LSG),
Postal Assistant, Kannur HPO, Kannur-670 001
Residing at Sruthi Laya, Cheleri P.O.
Kannur- 670 604 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.Millu Dandapani &Ms.Meera Ramesh)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Communication, Department of Post,
North Block, New Delhi 110 001.
2. Chief Commissioner,
for persons with disabilities (Divyanjan),
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,
Government of India, New Delhi 110 001.
3. Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle,
Thiruvananthapuram- 695 033
4. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kannur Division, Kannur,
Kerala- 670 001 - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr.PCGC)
The O.A having been heard on 3.11.2021, this Tribunal delivered the
following order on 04th January 2022:
2
ORDER
P.Madhavan, Judicial Member This Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A13,14 and 15 and give a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the same invoking the provision of Sec.77 of the Act.
ii) To direct the 2nd respondent to identify suo moto, for positioning the PWD candidates in promotion in accordance with Annexure A6 OM.
iii) To direct the 2nd respondent to set apart the post in the department at Kannur Postal Division in accordance with Annexure A6 OM.
iv) Direct the 3rd respondent not to fill up 1 post of HSG-1 (NFG) at Kannur Postal Division till the benefit of PWD candidates are allocated in tune with the provisions of the Act and Annexure A6 OM.
v) To grant such other appropriate order or direction as the Tribunal deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and
vi) Award costs."
2. The case of the applicant is as follows:-
The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant in the year 1981. As per O.M dated 31.08.1978, the Department had granted him Conveyance Allowance which is given to orthopedically handicapped employees with disability of lower extremities. He was granted 10% of basic pay as Conveyance Allowance. For the purpose of availing the benefit, he had produced a Medical Certificate from the Civil Surgeon. The Conveyance Allowance was granted to orthopedically handicapped employees who have a minimum of 40% disability of either upper or lower limps. The said allowance was granted to him as per O.M dated 31.08.1978 and subsequent O.M dated 03.12.1979, which is produced as Annexures A2 and 3 A3. The disability certificate of the applicant is produced as Annexure A1. He is drawing the Conveyance Allowance for his disability from 1985 onwards. The order of granting allowance is produced as Annexure A4. He has also produced a copy of the pay slip which shows that he was granted the Conveyance Allowance even in the month of August 2020 as Annexue A5. As per the provisions of 'The Persons with Disabilities (equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995, a person suffering from disability of 45% and more is legally entitled to get the benefits mentioned under the Act. The next promotion avenue for the applicant was promotion to the post of Lower Selection Grade (LSG). As per LSG Recruitment Rules 1976, a person has to attain 5 years of regular service as Postal Assistant. The applicant who had joined the service in the year 1981 got LSG promotion only on 21.1.2020 i.e, after the lapse of four decades. He was not considered for promotion in the PWD category even though he was drawing Conveyance Allowance. The next promotion avenue is HSG-II which requires six years service as Post Master Grade 1. The next promotion is HSG-1 which requires five years service as Post Master Grade -II. According to the applicant, he should have been awarded LSG in the year 1997-2000 and promotion to HSG-II in the year 2006 and HSG-I in the year 2015 respectively if the benefits of the PWD Act were extended to him. According to him, the Chief Postal Master General of Kerala Circle had issued letter no.
SD/5/2/CADEREREST/2019 and the name of the applicant had also figured in it. As per the Office Memorandum issued by the DoP&T dated 18.2.1997, guidelines for reservation for physically handicapped candidates in the post filled by promotion was identified dividing the cycle of 100 points into 3 blocks. The first block at 33, second at 67 and third at 100. This O.M was superseded by O.M dated 15.01.2018 which is produced at Annexure A6. It provides for maintenance of rosters as per para 7.1 and the Establishment has to maintain a group wise 4 separate 100 point vacancy based reservation roster register for determining reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities. Paragraph 7.2 states that each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into 4 blocks. These 4 blocks comprises of point no.01 to point no.25 under 1st block, point no.26 to point no.50 under 2nd block, point no.51 to point no.75 under 3rd block and point no.76 to point no.100 under 4 th block. Usually the promotions to LSG were conducted in time bound manner. But after the introduction of TBOP/BCR, the process of year-wise DPC was not done and TBOP officials were directed to work against LSG post and BCR officials were directed to work against HSG-II post. The applicant was under the firm belief that he would be given promotion under the PH quota. But no action was forthcoming from the respondents even though several requests were made to follow the percentage mentioned in the Act. Ultimately, he gave another representation in the year 2017 requesting his promotion which he is entitled to in the year 2017. A copy of said representation is produced at Annexure A7. According to the applicant, there was no practice of maintaining a roster for reservation in Postal Department in Kannur Division. The applicant had applied under RTI Act for getting the details. But the reply was that the Department had not followed the percentage of reservation to PH candidates and register of 100 points was not maintained also. The applicant had filed a complaint before the second respondent, i.e, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 27.12.2019. But the second respondent also failed to pass an order till the date of filing of this O.A.
3. The respondents contend that the applicant was recruited on the basis of compassionate grounds quota and he is not entitled to be considered under PWD quota. The appointment on compassionate grounds is usually made on regular 5 basis. The department is bound to adjust the applicant in the recruitment roster against the slots set-apart for the category viz; SC/ST/OBC/General. In Aryan Raj v. Chandigarh Administration and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that PWD Candidates are entitled to the same benefits as given to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidates. So the contention of the respondents before the second respondent was not maintainable. The Chief Commissioner having the powers of Civil Court ought to have pass an order on the complaint filed by him. He also pleaded that there is every possibility for granting promotion to the post of HSG-I(NFG). In the meantime, before passing of an order by Respondent no.2, applicant seeks a stay of the said appointment on filing the O.A. This Tribunal had granted an interim order to keep one post vacant till a decision is taken in the O.A.
4. The respondents appeared and filed a detailed reply statement denying the allegations made in the Original Application. According to them, the applicant had entered into service as Postal Assistant on 06.01.1981 in Kasargod Division and he was transferred to Kannur Division. He was appointed on compassionate grounds in relaxation of normal recruitment rules as his father retired on invalidation. The applicant was not recruited under PH quota. According to them, the granting of Conveyance Allowance/Transport Allowance to orthopedically handicapped employees are governed by the instructions contained in O.M dated 31.08.1978 (Annexure A-2). It is admitted that the applicant in the instant Original Application was granted Conveyance Allowance at the rate of 10% of Basic Pay on the basis of a medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon during 1980. The said allowance is granted if the applicant is having a minimum disability of 40%. The applicant cannot contend that he should be granted the benefits of Physically Handicapped in promotion also on the ground that he had been granted 6 Conveyance Allowance as claimed by him. Both the benefits stands in different footings. The monetary benefit as Transport Allowance was granted by CPMG on the basis of the medical certificate issued by a Government Doctor, but the cadre promotion can be granted only by the Director of Postal Services (HQ). Hence both benefits are entirely in different footings and both are governed by different set of rules. For claiming the benefits of Physically Handicapped persons, the applicant has to submit relevant disability certificate from the Medical Board duly constituted by the Central or State Government which may consist of at least three members, out of which, at least one shall be a specialist in the particular field for assessing disability as the case may be. The said certificate is governed by O.M dated 29.12.2005, which is produced as Annexure R-1.
5. The applicant in this case had not submitted any request or representation to grant him the status of Persons with Disability (PwD in short) either at the time of initial appointment or after entering into the government service. From the time of appointment in 1981 till 2017, the official had not preferred any representation to the competent authority to consider him in the category of Persons with Disability. Only in 2017, the applicant has requested to classify him under PWD category. The Government has issued O.M dated 10.06.2009 stating that an employee who acquires disability after entering into service also will be entitled to get the benefit of reservation as a person with disability from the date he produces a valid certificate of disability. The said O.M is produced by the respondents as Annexure R-2. The applicant has not submitted the duly authorised Medical Board certificate in his case. The applicant was considered for promotion to the LSG cadre on 21.01.2020. The applicant has accepted the promotion and then promoted to LSG w.e.f 25.07.2020. The next promotion will be granted only after completion of six years of regular qualifying service in Lower 7 Selection Grade. Since the applicant was granted LSG only in 2020, he will be eligible for HSG II only on 2016.
6. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating his contentions. He has also produced a copy of the medical board certificate, stating that he is having 45% disability as Annexure A-20 issued on 16.12.2020. He has also produced a copy of the order subsequently passed by the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. The Commissioner has ordered as follows:
"This Court is of the view that necessary medical examination should be conducted by a Medical Board to assess the disability status of the complainant and thereafter provide him all benefits as admissible to persons with disabilities. "
7. The aforementioned order was passed on 15.12.2000. The applicant thereafter had filed Annexure A-23 representation before the Chief Postmaster General along with medical certificate passed for granting the relief. In the meanwhile, the respondents had approached this Tribunal for modifying the interim order earlier passed regarding keeping of one post vacant and also submitted that the applicant has retired in the meanwhile and there is no purpose in continuing with the said order as the applicant will only get a notional fixation even if the reliefs are granted. In view of the above submission and after hearing the counsel for the applicant, the interim order was vacated.
8. The counsel for the respondents has filed an additional reply statement to the rejoinder filed reiterating the main contentions put forward earlier. It is also stated that as the instant Original Application is pending before this Tribunal, the respondents have not initiated actions for assessing the disability of the applicant. However, as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board, produced as 8 Annexure A-20 dated 16.12.2020, the respondents have initiated action to update in the Service Records of the applicant and categorize him under PWD quota. They had also filed a second additional reply statement reiterating the contentions raised by the respondents earlier and also contending that the Government is not bound to make reservations in promotion and there is no fundamental right which gives an individual to claim reservation in promotions.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Mrs.Sumathi Dandapani appeared for the applicant and Learned Sr.PCGC Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil appeared for the respondents and they were heard in detail. We have also gone through the pleadings and submissions made across the bar by both counsels. The Senior Counsel Smt.Sumathi Dandapani had submitted that the applicant in this case is an Orthopedically Handicapped person and he is entitled to get the benefit of the PWD Act. But the respondents had not given the benefit of reservation in promotion to him. As per Annexure A-6 O.M dated 15. 01.2018, 4% of the total number of vacancies has to be filled up by PWD candidates in each group of posts i.e, Group A, B and C with benchmark disabilities. The respondents are bound to maintain group wise separate 100 point vacancy roster for determining reservation of persons with benchmark disabilities. Each register to have 100 points and each cycles of 100 points shall be divided into 4 blocks. The respondents in this case has not maintained such a register and they had not implemented the directions issued under Annexure A-6 O.M dated 15.1.2018. If the said O.M was implemented, the applicant would have got the required promotion which was ear-marked for persons with benchmark disabilities. It was also contended on behalf of the applicant that the respondents in this case had objected to the granting of promotion stating that the applicant in this case was recruited on compassionate grounds and he cannot be considered as PWD 9 candidate. This argument has no legs to stand on in this case since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and Ors reported in 2016 13 SCC 153 had stated as follows:
" We further direct the Government to extend three per cent reservation to PWD in all identified posts in Group A and Group B irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts. "
10. The learned Senior Counsel has also invited our attention to the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Leesamma Joseph reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 435. In that case, the respondent was given employment on compassionate grounds and his contention was that he was not a PWD person at the entry point. The question was whether such a person can claim reservation in matters of promotion as it will affect other general candidates. In paragraph 20 and 21 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"20. The aforesaid issue was raised by learned Amicus Curiae in the context of the plea of the appellant State that the State does not provide for any reservation in promotion for PwD. Thus, a person with disability would be considered for promotion along with other persons working in the feeder cadre. We have no doubt that the mandate of Section 32 of the 1995 Act enjoins the government to identify posts that can be filled up with persons with disability. Thus, even posts in promotional cadre have to be identified for PwD and such posts have to be reserved for PwD. The identification of such posts is no doubt a prerequisite for reservation in promotion for PwD. There cannot be methodology used to defeat the reservation in promotion. Once that post is identified, the logical conclusion would be that it would be reserved for PwD who have been promoted. The absence of rules to provide for reservation in promotion would not defeat the rights of PwD to a reservation in promotion as it flows from the legislation and in our view, this is the basis of the mandate of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta's and Siddaraju's cases (supra).
21. The only caveat to the aforesaid would be if the Government is of the view that the posts in the promotional 10 cadre cannot be reserved for PwD category due to functional or other reasons and that should not be a ruse to defeat the reservation in promotion. We are conscious of the fact that such a scenario will result in frustration and stagnation as others may get promoted even over the persons with disability as submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae, more often than not, the disability comes in the way of meeting the requirements for promotion. In such a situation, we would require the government to explore methods to address the issue of stagnation of PwD. "
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 27 of the said judgment held that:
" 27. Now coming to the question of the respondent not being initially appointed in the quota for PwD in the feeder cadre, we note that there is no dispute about the benchmark disability of the respondent. It would be discriminatory and violative of the mandate of the Constitution of India if the respondent is not considered for promotion in the PwD quota on this pretext. Once the respondent has been appointed, she is to be identically placed as others in the PwD cadre. The anomaly which would arise from the submission of the appellant-State is apparent - a person who came in through normal recruitment process but suffers disability after joining service would on a pari materia position be also not entitled to be considered to a vacancy in a promotional post reserved for a PwD. This is the consequence if the entry point is treated as determinative of the entitlement to avail of the benefits. Source of recruitment ought not to make any difference but what is material is that the employee is a PwD at the time for consideration for promotion. The 1995 Act does not make a distinction between a person who may have entered service on account of disability and a person who may have acquired disability after having entered the service. Similarly, the same position would be with the person who may have entered service on a claim of a compassionate appointment. The mode of entry in service cannot be a ground to make out a case of discriminatory promotion. "
11. The learned counsel had also invited our attention to the case of Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka in Civil Appeal No.1567 of 2017 reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 45 wherein the larger bench held that the judgement in Rajeev Kumar Gupta will bind the Union and the state Governments and must be strictly 11 followed not withstanding the memorandum dated 29.12.2005, in particular. According to the counsel for applicant, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Annexure A-6 O.M issued by the Department of DoP&T dated 15.1.2018, the respondents are bound to keep a separate roster for the reservation of PWD candidates and promotions has to be granted to them on the basis of the roster points.
12. The learned counsel appeared for the respondents mainly contend that the applicant in this case has not sought for getting the status of PWD till the year 2017 and it is not the fault of the respondents. The applicant in this case was given promotion to LSG in the year 2020 on regular basis and he has accepted the same. It was the duty of the applicant to bring the status of PWD by giving representation earlier. This was not done. Another main contention put forward by the counsel is that the applicant in this case was recruited and appointed on the basis of compassionate grounds and he was not selected as PWD candidate. This being so, he cannot claim the benefit of PWD candidates now. The Act provides for bringing a medical certificate of a Medical Board for granting the status of Physically Handicapped persons and this was not done by the applicant in this case. So the applicant cannot claim the benefit of PWD candidate in promotion in this case.
13. We have gone through the pleadings and various documents produced by the applicant as well as respondents in this case. The main objection put forward by the respondents in this case is that the applicant was not selected as a PWD candidate and he was appointed on compassionate grounds and he is not entitled to get the benefit of PWD status. On a reading of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, the Hon'ble 12 Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"24. A combined reading of Sections 32 and 33 of the 1995 Act explicates a fine and designed balance between requirements of administration and the imperative to provide greater opportunities to PWD. Therefore, as detailed in the first part of our analysis, the identification exercise under Section 32 is crucial. Once a post is identified, it means that a PWD is fully capable of discharging the functions associated with the identified post. Once found to be so capable, reservation under Section 33 to an extent of not less than three per cent must follow. Once the post is identified, it must be reserved for PWD irrespective of the mode of recruitment adopted by the State for filling up of the said post.
25. In light of the preceding analysis, we declare the impugned memoranda as illegal and inconsistent with the 1995 Act. We further direct the Government to extend three percent reservation to PWD in all IDENTIFIED POSTS in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. "
14. From the above, it can be seen that the respondents cannot deny the benefits of PWD candidates by saying that the mode of recruitment of applicant was not direct recruitment under PWD quota and he was appointed on compassionate grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that irrespective of the mode of recruitment, PWD candidates are entitled to get the benefits of the PWD Act. So this contention of the respondents has no legs to stand on in the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. So we find that this contention of the respondents cannot be sustained.
15. The DoP&T had issued an O.M bearing No.36035/02/2017-Estt(RES) dated 15.01.2018 stating detailed instructions for granting reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities. The circular has directed that:
"Every Government establishment shall maintain group-wise a separate vacancy based 100 point vacancy 13 based reservation roster register in the format given in Annexure for determining/effecting reservation for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - one each for Group 'A' posts filled by direct recruitment, Group 'B' posts filled by direct recruitment and Group 'C' posts filled by direct recruitment.
Each register shall have cycles of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into four blocks, comprising the following points:
1st Block - Point No.01 to point No.25
2nd Block - Point No.26 to point No.50
rd
3 Block - Point No.51 to point No.75
4th Block - Point No.76 to point No.100. "
16. Points 1, 26, 51 and 76 of the roster shall be earmarked for persons with benchmark disabilities - one point each for four respective categories of disabilities. It was also directed in the said O.M that the Head of the establishment shall ensure that vacancies identified at Sl.No.1,26, 51 and 76 are earmarked for the respective categories of the persons with benchmark disabilities. From the above, it can be seen that the DoP&T has issued necessary guidelines for preparing a roster for persons with benchmark disabilities and it appears that the respondents are not following the roster points for making promotions in Group A and B vacancies. The contention put forward by the respondents is that the applicant has never approached the respondents for getting the status of persons with benchmark disability under PWD Act and hence he was not given the status and he was not promoted to LSG on the basis of his disability. But it appears that the respondents had failed to maintain the register as directed by the DoP&T in Annexure A-6 and no proper process was done to identify the persons who are entitled to get the benefits under PWD Act. This was the main reason for not granting the benefits of PWD Act to the persons with benchmark disabilities in the respondent's department. So we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the respondents in this case. The applicant in 14 this case had given Annexures A-7 and A-8 representations in the year 2017, but it was not at all considered by the respondents. Thereafter, he approached respondent no.2, the Commissioner, under Rule 38(1) and the matter was agitated before the Commissioner and the Commissioner has passed an order during the pendency of this O.A directing the respondents to implement the benefits to the PWD Act, especially to the applicant. We also note that the applicant in this case was drawing Conveyance Allowance which was allowed for Physically Handicapped persons with more than 40% disability, right from the beginning of his career and he was drawing the same till the date of his retirement. So it appears that the fact of disability of the applicant was noted by the respondents during his service under them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others v. Leesamma Joseph refers supra has also considered the question whether a person who was selected under compassionate grounds can be considered for promotion under PWD category.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that irrespective of mode of recruitment, the applicant therein was entitled to get the benefits of PWD Act in promotion also.
So the contentions of the respondents is not supported by law.
17. In view of the above, we find that the applicant is entitled to get promotion on the basis of PWD Act. He has produced a certificate of Medical Board as Annexure A-20 and it is clearly shown that he is a man Orthopedically handicapped and having benchmark disability. He has sought for promotion on the basis of PWD category as early as from 2017 onwards. The respondents has not considered the same. The respondents had also not prepared a roster showing the points on which a PWD candidate has to be accommodated. Hence we hereby direct the respondents to implement Annexure A-6 O.M in letter and spirit and also to 15 consider the representation of the application at Annexure A-7 in the light of the instructions issued by the DoP&T and in the light of judicial pronouncements made by the Apex Court in this regard. Since the applicant had already retired, the applicant is entitled to get promotion and notional fixation from the date of promotion and also entitled to get consequential fixation in pension in this case. We direct the respondents to complete the exercise within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. The Original Application is allowed as above. No order as to costs.
(K.V.Eapen) (P.Madhavan)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sv
16
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- True copy of the disability certificate dtd.27.09.2007 issued by the
Asst. Surgeon of the Government Hospital, Kannur.
Annexure A2- True copy of the O.M. No. 190202/1/78-BIV(B) dtd. 31.8.1978.
Annexure A3- True copy of the OM No. 19029/1/78-EIV(B) dtd.03.12.1979.
Annexure A4- True copy of the Order No.Est 49/1-1/04 granting conveyance
allowance issued from the office of Chief Post Master, Trivandrum dtd. 16.5.1985. Annexure A5- True copy of the pay slip issued by the department of posts for the month of August, 2020.
Annexure A6- True copy of the office memorandum bearing No.36035/02/2017- Estt(RES) dtd.15.01.2018 Annexure A7- True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant before the rd 3 respondent dated 27.12.2017.
Annexure A8- True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant before the rd 3 respondent dtd. 15.07.2019 Annexure A9- True copy of the request No.Ref.No. BPEA-GR-C/TVM/2019-20/8-9 made under RTI Act on 13.8.2019.
Annexure A10- True copy of the letter No. 12-1/CCD/2018 dated 12.9.2019 received from the office of the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A11- True copy of the reply given by the department of posts India, bearing No.ST/DA 11/RTI/13/2019 dtd. 7.11.2019. Annexure A12- True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant before the nd 2 respondent dated 27.12.2019 Annexure A13- True copy of the communication issued by the 3 rd respondent bearing case No. 11706/1021/2020 dtd.20.01.2020.
Annexure A14- True copy of the reply submitted by the 3rd respondent bearing No. ST/5-2/CADRE REST/2019 pt dated 15.5.2020.
Annexure A15- True copy of the rejoinder submitted by the applicant before the 2 nd respondent dated 3.6.2020.
Annexure A16- True copy of the Memorandum bearing No. F.No. 14014/02/2012- Estt.(D) issued by the DOPT dated 16.1.2013.
Annexure A17- True copy of the invoice pertaining to the above procedure No. ST/3- 3/Dlg/2017 pt dated 11.8.2020.
Annexure A18- True copy of the circle gradation list of postal assistant as on 01.07.2008.
Annexure A19- True copy of the order bearing Memo No. ST/3-3/Dlg/2014 dtd. 12.2.2018 issued by the Office of Chief Post General. Annexure A20- True copy of the proceedings of the Medical Board dated 16.12.2020 & 31.12.2020.
Annexure A21- True copy of the Certificate issued by the Medical Board dated 06.01.2021 which had been duly attested on 12.01.2021. Annexure A22- True copy of the order issued by the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with disabilities (DIVYANGJAN) dtd. 15.12.2020. Annexure A23- True copy of the letter dated 12.1.2021 sent to the 3 rd respondent.17
Annexure A23(a)- True copy of the Postal Receipt of Annexure A23. Annexure A24- True copy of the letter dated 27.12.2017. Annexure A1 (in M.A)- True copy of the order dtd.28.08.2020 of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure R1- OM No: 36035/3/2004-Estt(Res) dated 29-12-2005. Annexure R2- OM No. 36035/3/2009-Estt(Res.) dated 10-06-2009. Annexure R3- OM No. 5/1/60-Estt.(D) dated 28-06-1960 and OM No. 5/1/62-Estt. (D) dated 31-07-1962.
Annexure R4- Copies of certain pages of 100 point reservation roster maintained in respect of the physically Handicapped points earmarked for Direct Recruitment. Annexure R5- Copies of certain pages of 100 point reservation roster maintained in respect of the Physically Handicapped points earmarked for Promotion Annexure R6- Letter No. 12-10/2017-SCT dated 01-04-2019. Annexure R7- Relevant page of gradation list issued during 2017 under the dated signature of the applicant.
...