Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Prem Pal Gupta Through Lrs. Smt. Kalpana vs Govt. Of Nctd on 3 July, 2025
1
Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2509/2015
Reserved on: 27.05.2025
Pronou
Pronounced on: 03.07.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Smt. Kalpana,
W/o Late Sh. Prem Pal Gupta,
R/o House No. E-1/700,
E Gali No. 20,
Sonia Vihar,
Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajiv Aggarwal)
Versus
1. The Chief Conservator of Forest,
Department of Forest & Wild Life,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
2nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, ITO,
New Delhi - 110002.
2. The Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Department of Forest and Wild Life,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
North Forest Division,
Kamal Nehru Ridge,
Delhi - 110007.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Tanmay Vasishtha for Mr. Amit Anand)
2
Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
In the instant OA filed under Section - 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-
reliefs:
"(i) create and post the applicant on the supernumerary post until he attains the age of superannuation and pay him all the consequential benefits (monetary as well as non non- monetary) thereof including promotions, increments, ACPIMACP, etc. treating the applicant to be on duty for all intents and purposes purposes from the date of accident (i.e. 23.07.2012) till the date of his superannuation in terms ofSection 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and full Participation) Act, 1995;
(ii) pay to the applicant his due sala salary with effect from 01.09.2013 till date;
(iii) pay and bear all the medical expenses which have arisen and which would arise any time in future due to the disablement I illness I injuries caused to the applicant due to the accident as occurred on 23.07.2 23.07.2012;
and
(iv) revoke the impugned order dated 02.07.2014 hereby all the leaves of the applicant (as due to him in his leave account has per the relevant rules) have been adjusted I exhausted by the management and pass a fresh office order thereby declaring declaring that all the leaves of the applicant (as due to him on 23.07.2012 in his leave account) are available and have been restored.
(v) pass any such other or further order (s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the Applicant; and
(vi) allow the present Original Application with costs, in favour of the Applicant."
3Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015
2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted as under:
2.1. During the pendency of this O.A., Late Prem Pal Gupta (the original original applicant herein) expired, and now this O.A is being contested by his wife, Ms. Kalpana. 2.2. Late Prem Pal Gupta, (the original applicant) was appointed as a Mali (Gardener) by the Department of Forest & Wildlife, Government of NCT of Delhi on 16.05.198 16.05.1985 initially on a daily wage basis. His services were subsequently regularized with effect from 01.03.1991, and throughout his career, he maintained an unblemished and uninterrupted record of service. His last posting was at the Central Ridge, ITO, New Delhi.
Delh 2.3. Unfortunately, while performing his official duties, the applicant met with a tragic accident on 23.07.2012. This incident led to a complete spinal cord injury, along with multiple other serious injuries. He was immediately admitted to St. Stephen's Stephen's Hospital, Delhi, where he remained under intensive medical care until 26.10.2012. 4 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 He underwent surgery and incurred significant medical expenses as a result of the accident. 2.4. Despite the severity of his condition, the department continued to pay his salary until 31.08.2013. However, from 01.09.2013 onward, the payment of his salary was stopped, on the grounds that he had exhausted all types of leave available to him under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. Being aggrieved by the impugned action on the part of the respondents/management in not paying the salary, the applicant through his union (Delhi Prashasan Vikas Vibhag Employees Union), served a legal demand notice dated 26.11.2013 upon the respondents/department. The department in its reply dated 12.12.2013 stated that further paid leave could not be granted unless the applicant was eligible for special disability leave, and even that was limited by the relevant rules. The respondents emphasized that salary cannot be paid without work being rendered once all leave entitlements are exhausted.
5Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 2.5. Following this, the department issued an order dated 13.01.2014 requesting the applicant to furnish a disability certificate from a competent authority to determine the next course of action. Subsequently, Subsequently, on 14.02.2014, the department referred the applicant to Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, Delhi where he was examined by a medical board. In its report dated 10.03.2014, the hospital confirmed that the applicant had suffered from complete paraplegia with bladder and bowel involvement and had shown no signs of recovery since the accident. It was also concluded that there was no reasonable chance of functional recovery; he would not be able to perform any field duties in the future.
Thereafter, Vide order order dated 27.03.2014, certain adjustments were made by the respondents in the earned leave of the applicant.
2.6. Further, on 20.05.2014, Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi issued a certificate declaring the applicant to be 100% physically disabled with a permanent condition affecting both lower limbs and his bladder and bowel functions, with no prospects of improvement. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.07.2014, the leaves of the applicant (as 6 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 due to him in his leave account) were adjusted/exhausted by the respondents. The order dated 02.07.2014 reads as under:-
"Consequent upon his inability to perform duty w.e.f 24/07/2012 due to a serious accident on 23/07/2012 while on duty, the absence period of Sh. Prem Pal, S/o Sh. Sohan Pal, labour is hereby ordered to be regularized by grant of the following kinds of leave:
S. Period of Leave No. of Kind of leave No. days granted
1. 24/07/2012 to 180 Earned Leave 19/01/2013
2. 20/01/2013 to 10 Commuted leave 29/01/2013 on medical grounds
3. 30/01/2013 to 150 Earned leave 28/06/2023
4. 29/06/2013 and 02 Extra Oridnary 30/06/2013 Leave (EOL)
5. 01/07/2013 to 15 Earned Leave 20/07/2013
6. 16/07/2013 to 05 Commuted Leave 20/07/2013 on Medical Grounds
7. 21/07/2013 to 164 Extra Ordinary 31/12/2013 Leave (EOL)
8. 01/01/2014 to 15 Earned Leave 15/01/2014
9. 16/01/2014 to 05 Commuted Leave 20/01/2014 on Medical Grounds
10. 21/01/2014 to 48 Extra Ordinary 09/03/2014 Leave (EOL) 2 The balance of leave re-asmining re asmining in the Leave Account of Sh. Prem Pal after grant of different kinds of leave as above shall be Earned Leave Nil and HPL HPL-01.
3. On the basis of the comments of the Orthopaedic Board of the GTB Hospital, Delhi contained in letter No.F.6/GTBH/MS/SP/ME/14/3825 dated 10/03/2014 commenting that considering considering his nature of injury and 7 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 time elapsed since trauma, there is no reasonable chance of any functional recovery of (his) both lower limbs, Sh.
Prem Pal's further period of absence from the said date of medical opinion, i.e from 10/03/2014 is hereby o ordered to be regularized by grant of Special Disability Leave initially for 120 day days from 10/03/2014 to 07/07/2014 in accordance with the provision of Sub Sub- rule (3) of Rule 44 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.
4. The Special Disability Leave of 120 days tto be granted as above shall be counted as duty in calculating service for pension and shall not be debited to the Leave Account as per Sub - rule (6) and leave salary for this initial period of 120 days shall be equal to the leave salary while on earned leave leave as pe: clause (a) of the Sub Sub-rule (7) of Rule 44 ibid.
5. Special Disability Leave for another period of 120 days beyond 07/07/2014 may, at the option of Sh. Prem Pal, be allowable on leave salary equal to the leave salary on earned leave but in that event event the period of such leave shall be debited to his Half Pay Leave account as provided under the proviso to clause (b) of sub sub-rule (7) of Rule 44 ibid.
6. The salary of Sh. Prem Pal, S/o Sh. Sohan Pal, labour, which has not been drawn since Sept. 2013, s shall now be released and further salary paid to him in accordance with this order of grant of different kinds of leave.
7. This order is being issued with the approval / concurrence o the Addl. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in his capacity as HOD accorded vide UO. No.509/APCCF dated 13/06/2014."
2.7. Despite the medical findings and the applicant's dire condition, his salary continued to remain withheld from September 2013 onwards. Ventilating his grievance, the applicant submitted a representation representation to the department on 03.11.2014 seeking the release of his pending salary, which was duly received by the department but went unanswered. 8 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 Aggrieved by the ongoing inaction and denial of benefits, the applicant, through his counsel, issued a formal legal notice on 09.02.2015 demanding the release of his salary, but to no avail.
2.8. Learned counsel for the applicant asserted that the failure of the department to pay applicant's salary from 01.09.2013 and their refusal to accommodate him under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, is not only illegal but also arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of his rights. He added that the applicant is entitled to protection again against service termination and has a right to be retained in employment with appropriate alternative arrangements, as mandated under the disability legislation.
2.9. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant, a government employee, sustain sustained a severe spinal injury on duty on 23.07.2012, resulting in 100% permanent disability affecting his lower limbs and vital bodily functions. Despite clear provisions under Section 47 9 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 1995, which mandates that a disabled employee must not be removed from service and should either be retained in the same post or accommodated in a suitable position with full pay and benefits, the respondents arbitrarily stopped paying his salary from 01.09.2013.
2.10. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003 4 SCC 524), Bhagwan Dass & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (2008 1 SCC 5
579) and Anil Kumar Mahajan v. Union of India (2013 7 SCC
243), wherein, according to him, it is held that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is mandatory and overrides general general service rules like the CCS Rules. Accordingly, learned counsel added that the respondents action of denying him salary and medical reimbursement is unjustified.
10Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 2.11. In addition, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon the DoP&T DoP&T's O.M. dated 17.01.2004 on the subject "Non -invalidation invalidation of a Govt.
Servant who has been permanently incapacitated from Govt. Service on account of mental or physical disability - information regarding" and submitted that the impugned action on the part of the respondents is also contrary to the said O.M. 2.12. Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance upon Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Leave Rules), which reads as under:
"20. Leave to a Government servant who is unlikely to be fit to return to duty (1)(a) When a Medical Authority has reported that there is no reasonable prospect that the Government servant will even be fit to return to duty, leave shall not necessarily be refused to such Government servant.
(b) The leave may be granted, if due, by the authority competent to grant leave on the following conditions:
conditions:-.
(i) if the medical authority is unable to say with certainty that the Government servant, who has acquired a disability, will never again be fit for service, leave n not exceeding twelve months at a time may be granted and such leave shall not be extended without further reference to a Medical Authority:
(ii) if a Government servant is declared by the Medical Authority, as specified in Rule 19, as to have acquired such disability which may prevent him from discharging 11 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 further service, leave or an extension of leave may be granted to him after the certificate of the Medical Authority has been received in Form 3 3-A:
Provided that any leave debited for the period(s) granted under sub-clause sub clause (1) of Clause (b), after receipt of the certificate of disability of the Medical Authority, shall be remitted back into the leave account of the Government servant:
Provided further that any leave granted to regulate the period of absence under sub--clause (ii) of Clause (b), after receipt of the certificate of the Medical Authority, shall not be debited to the leave account of the Government servant.
(2) In the case of a Government servant who is granted leave in accordance with the provisi provisions of Clause (b) of sub rule (1), the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of sub-rule Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) shall, suo motu, apply."
2.13. Concluding his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the applicant was the sole breadwinne breadwinner of a family that includes a disabled daughter. Since his accident, he has remained unemployed and without income, pushing his family to the brink of starvation. Therefore, by way of the present O.A., the applicant seeks seeks full salary from the date it was stopped, along with all service-related related benefits, and coverage of past and future medical expenses.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned proxy counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments made in the 12 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 counter affidavit and denied the submi submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant by arguing that the respondents' actions were legal, justified, and in accordance with the rules.
rules Learned proxy counsel further stated that salary was not stopped arbitrarily - it was paid until 30.04.2014, 30.04.2014, and not 01.09.2013 as claimed by the applicant. The stoppage of salary, according to respondents, was valid since the applicant has not reported to work at all following his accident in July 2012. 3.1. Learned proxy counsel further submitted tthat the respondents while acknowledging the fact that the applicant is medically unfit for field duties duties, and he is capable of performing office-based office based work only only, were willing to assign such duties if he would have resumed his attendance.. Thus, learned proxy counsel argued that the applicant cannot draw salary while remaining absent and cannot take advantage of his own inaction inaction.
3.2. Learned proxy counsel further submitted that the applicant was initially appointed and later regularized as a Labourer (not a Mali Mali as stated by the applicant). He 13 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 asserted that all leave granted and actions taken were in line with CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.
19723.3. Regarding medical expenses, learned proxy counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have reimbursed all claims c properly submitted by the applicant. He also emphasized that the respondents have responded to the legal notices vide letters dated 02.03.2015 and 10.03.2015 and never denied payment of dues that are legally permissible.
3.4. Concluding his arguments, arguments, learned proxy counsel for the respondents argued that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act has not been violated, violated, as the applicant has not cooperated in resuming duties that match his medical condition. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the present O.A. by submitted that the applicant's demands are unjustified and the respondents' actions are as per the law.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record, we would draw the following follo analysis:
14
Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015
5. ANALYSIS :
5.1 A Special Disability Leave (SDL) is a leave granted to government employees who become disabled or injured while on duty. Such leave is intended to protect an employee who needs time off for medical reasons related to a disability incurred while performing their official duties.
SDL is typically granted for a period of up to 24 months. The said leave ought to be granted in light of pious provisions of PWD Act as amended up to date. 5.2 In Kunal Singh v.. Union of India & Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 524, the t Apex Court emphasized that Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act serves to protect individuals who acquire disabilities while in service, as failure to do so would cause suffering for the affected person and those dependent on them.. 5.3 In Bhagwan Dass & Anr. v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Board (2008) 1 SCC 579 579, the Apex Court observed that the respondent was fully aware of the 15 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 statutory ory protections available to the petitioner therein yet went on to deny the said protections. 5.4 In Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1293 1293, the Apex Court had held that the right of the Government to exempt establishments to not discriminate against persons with disabilities under Section 3(3) of the RPwD Act, 2016 is not absolute and is subject to a proportionality analysis. The facets of non-discrimination non discrimination that guide the PwD Act, 1995 are not restricted in their applicability to Section 47 of the PwD Act, 1995. It further held that while Section 47 is considerably narrower than Section 20(4) of the RPwD Act 2016, nonetheless, the overarching principle of substantive equality mandated the Government to provide reasonable accommodation to persons affected by any kind of disability, even under under the PwD Act, 1995, especially when the disability was acquired during the course of the employment. The Government was additionally obligated to shift such an employee who acquired a disability to a suitable position with the same pay scale and benefits. 16 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 5.5 The applicant sustained a severe spinal injury on duty on 23.07.2012, resulting in 100% permanent disability affecting his lower limbs and vital bodily functions. The department continued to pay his salary until 31.08.2013. However, from 01.09.2013 onward, onward, the payment of his salary was stopped on the grounds that he had exhausted all types of leave available to him under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972. The department, in its reply dated 12.12.2013 stated that further paid leave could no not be granted unless the applicant was eligible for special disability leave, and even that was limited by the relevant rules.
5.6 The respondents respondent have ignored Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Leave Rules), Rules), which stipulates as under:
"(ii)
(ii) if a Government servant is declared by the Medical Authority, as specified in Rule 19, as to have acquired such disability which may prevent him from discharging further service, leave or an extension of leave may be granted to him after the certificate of the Medical Authority has been received in Form 33-A:
Provided that any leave debited for the period(s) granted under sub-clause sub clause (1) of Clause (b), after receipt of the certificate of disability of the Medical Authority, shall be remitted back into the leave ac account of the Government servant:17
Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 Provided further that any leave granted to regulate the period of absence under sub- sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b), after receipt of the certificate of the Medical Authority, shall not be debited to the leave account of the Gove Government servant.
(2) In the case of a government servant who is granted leave in accordance with the provisions of Clause (b) of sub rule (1), the provisions of Section 20 of the Rights of sub-rule Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016) shall, suo motu, apply."
ap 5.7 The first medical report by itself was sufficient proof of the fact that the applicant was totally incapacitated, which was also supported by the medical examination report of Late Prem Pal (original applicant) dated 10.03.2014 issued by Guru Teg Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi as well as his Medical Certificate dated 20.05.2014 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali, Government Hospital, New Delhi, which reads as under:
Medical report dated 10.03.2014 "Medical Sub: Regarding Medical Examination in r/o Sh. Prem Pal S/o Sh. Sohan Pal, Labourer for the purpose of grant of Special Disability Leave.
Ref. Your letter No. F.10(146)/Estt/DCF(Cn)/02/4230 F.10(146)/Estt/DCF(Cn)/02/4230- 33 dated 14.02.14 Sir, Reference as above, regarding medical examination of Sh.
Prem Pal S/o Sh. Sohan Pal. The said case was exam examined by the Orthopedic Board of GTB Hospital on 03.03.14. Their comments are as under:-
under:18
Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 On his clinical examination and scrutiny of his medical records, it was found that he had D12, L1 with complete paraplegia with BB involvement following on accident on 23.07.12. He has shown no significant recovery till date. Considering his nature of injury and time elapsed since trauma, there is no reasonable chance of any functional recovery of both lower limbs. In view of this, it will not be possible for him to perform perform field duties."
Medical Certificate dated 20.05.2014 "Medical CERTIFICATE FOR THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES This is to certify that Sh. Prempal, Son of Sh. Sohan Lal, Age 42 years old male, registration No. 126991 is a case of SPINAL INJURY, Paraplegia, Bowel & Bladder Involvement. He is physically disabled and has 100%(Hundred percent) Permanent (Physical impairment in relation to his Both Lower limbs and Bowel and Bladder.
Note:
1. This condition is progressive/non progressive not likely to improve.
2. Re-assessemnt nt is not recommended after a period of ----months."
5.8 Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, provides an unambiguous mandate as under:
under:-
"No establishment shall dispense w with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service..."
5.9. The he law requires the employer to:
(i) Retain the employee in the same post, or 19 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015
(ii) If unable to do so, shift them to another post with the same pay scale and service benefits benefits, or
(iii) Create a supernumerary post until the employee attains superannuation, if no suitable post is available.
5.10 From a bare perusal of the afore afore-quoted medical examination report, as well as the medical certificate, it is not in dispute that Late Prem Pal Pal (original applicant) was 100% physically disabled. The concept of reasonable accommodation has to be construed in the context of "functional assessment" not just awaiting a medical certificate/disability disability certificate to follow. The proper recourse would have been based on the initial reports themselves; the period from 24/07/2012 to 09/03/2014 for leave accounted ought to have been regularized in light of the provisions of Rule 20 read with Secti Section 47 of the PWD Act, inasmuch as the SDL is in addition to and not in derogation of any other kind of leave due and payable. 5.11 In the present case, the applicant became 100% disabled while performing his official duties. Nothing is 20 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 placed on record by the respondents to show that they made any genuine effort to either accommodate the applicant in a suitable post or create a supernumerary position.. Instead, his salary was stopped on the grounds of leave exhaustion, which is in clear violation of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 1995, as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in:
(i) Kunal Singh v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 524] -
Wherein it was held that disability laws ov override general service rules.
(ii) Anil Kumar Mahajan v. Union of India [(2013) 7 SCC 243] - Emphasizing mandatory protection from termination and entitlement to full benefits.
(iii) Bhagwan Dass v. Punjab State Electricity Board [(2008) 1 SCC 579] - Reinforcing the duty to retain disabled employees and accommodate them meaningfully.
The aforesaid decision(s) rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely covers the case of the applicant. 21 Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 5.12 Furthermore, the respondents contended that the applicant cant never reported for duty after 2012. However, medical records and disability certificates show that the applicant is paraplegic and permanently disabled disabled, incapable of independent movement. Therefore, in such a situation, expecting him to "report back tto duty" without any formal reassignment is unrealistic, insensitive, and contrary to the spirit of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
19955.13 The stoppage of the applicant's salary of the applicant from 01.09.2013 (or even 30.04.2014, as per respondents) is unjustified for the following reasons:
(i) Disability occurred while performing his official duties.
(ii) Medical records clearly show permanent and total disability.
(iii) As per DoPT O.M. dated 17.01.2004 17.01.2004, employees who become disabled should not be invalidated but retained with full service benefits. 22
Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015
(iv) Once the respondents accepted his disability (vide medical reports/certificates), they were legally bound to retain him with full full salary salary--whether on duty, reassignment, or through a supernumerary post.
(v) Adjustment/exhaustion of leave, vide order dated 02.07.2014 is not a substitute for their duty to continue paying the applicant's salary.
6. CONCLUSION :
6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we dispose of the present O.A. with directions to the respondents to treat the period as 'spent on duty' for all intents and purposes from the date of the accident, i.e., 23.07.2012 of the applicant (Late Prem Pal Gupta) G treating g his leaves w.e.f. 24/07/2012 to 09/03/2014 under SDL category and pay the consequential service benefits, including his salary and arrears, until the date of his death within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified c copy of this order.23
Item No.63 (C-5) O.A. No. 2509/2015 6.2. Needless to say, the aforesaid benefits shall be accorded to Ms. Kalpana, wife of the applicant (Late Prem Pal Gupta).
6.3. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member
ember (A) Member (J)
/as/