Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sudip Khutia vs South Eastern Railway on 23 December, 2022
aan rin ay OA 495.22 & Ors I i AES , 3 & pes fey scrapie CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date of Order: 23.12.2022 Coram: Hon'bleMr.Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member.
0.A. 495/2022 (Kolkata) Sudip Khutia, son of Amal 'Kumar Khutia, aged about 27 years, unemployed youth, residing at village Krishnanagar, PO Garh Krishnanagar, P.S. Nandigram, District: Purba Medinipur, Pin 721650 (M): 9749130804, Email id : [email protected]
-- applicant i in O.A . 495/202) VS.
1. Union of India, Service through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, .
11, Garden Reach, | Kolkata -- 760 043.
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, 44, Garden Reach, Kolkata -- 700 043.
3. The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), South Eastern Railway, South Eastern Railway, 41, Garden Reach, Kolkata -- 700 043,
4. The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Deshpran-Nandigram Special Railway Project, Having its office at P.O. Kanthi, -
Near Kanthi Railway Station, : P.O. Purba'Medinipur, --
Pin - 721401.
5. The Divisionai Railway Manager, a
- | 2 OA 495.22 & Ors . . South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur Division, Kharagpur, District Paschim Medinipur, Pin -- 721301.
6. The Assistant Personnel Officer, ~ South Eastern Railway, Kharagpur Division, Kharagpur, District Paschim Medinipur, Pin -- 721301.
.... Respondents in O.A 495.22) With
2. 0.A./505/2022 (Kolkata) MR U N BETAL, MR B CHATTERJEE........0004 Counsel for the applicants MIR S PAUL cvesecsssecsssecssssesesssssssscsserssesseesssnneces Counsel for the respondents MRUN BETAL, MR B CHATTERIEE......+++.... Counsel for the applicants MIR S PAUL uc csssseseevsersuerecesrerssesreateees . sesatses Counsel for the respondents
4. 0.A./507/2022 (Kolkata) SOMA BERA......VS......«. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY | MR U N BETAL, MR B CHATTERJEE..........Counsel for the applicants MR S PAUL sevsessaeatnttnimininmesennsenen- Counsel for the respondents
5. 0.A./508/2022 {Kolkata} WITH M.A./196/2022 SRUTI KUMAR BERA......VS......... SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY | . MR U N BETAL, MR B CHATTERSEE..........006 Counsel for the applicants MRS PAUL wacssessssssssesssssesssseccsneesssncnsssesessees Counsel for the respondents
6. 0.A./526/2022 (Kolkata) WITH M.A./201/2022 NOORBANU KHATUN daseee VS.eeeseeee SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY SK R ALAM cnnitititintiiiitnnnenCounsel fOr the applicants MRS BERA cectianaitsisssnsitunianeeunCOUNSel for the respondents pM
7. 0.A./527/2022 (Kolkata) WITH M.A./202/2022 3 OA 495.22 & Ors FARIDA BIBI ALIAS PHARIDA BIBI ......VS......... SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY SK R ALAM ........ seecvesesenseascensaenesneneeset® sanecne Counsel for the applicants MR A K CHATTOPADHYAY nesnnesennnCounsel for the respondents
8. 0.A./544/2022 (Kolkata) | .
NIBEDITA DEY ......VS....... SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY -- MR A CHAKRABORTY MS P MONDAL.............Counsel for the applicants MRSK GHOSH deseeeeeseaesavenceuesenseeeneeaseneneccaneneonsene Counsel for the respondents
9. 0.A./557/2022 (Kolkata) WITH M.A./216/2022 CHANDIDAS KHAN sree VS.ceeeeee SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY MR 5 K DATTA MR S ROY cisscsssssssvsseeessessseeesnes Counsel for the applicants
10. 0.A,/578/2022 (Kolkata) WITH M.A./223/2022 | BUOY PANDA ALIAS KAMALA KANTA PANDA...Vs...SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY SK R ALAM svnnssintunininnnesnneinnenee COUNSEL for the applicants |
11. 0.A./583/2022 (Kolkata) WITH IM.A./226/2022 | SARIFUNNESHA BIBI......Vs......... SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY | SK R ALAM eveustva see eescescaesavsneasersccneseess ......Counsel for the applicants MRAK CHATTOPADHYAY sesssenenenacucatersesens Counsel for the respondents 12, 0.0,/584/2022 (Kolkata) WITH M.A./227/2022 | SK MUSTAKIN.....Vs....... SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY SK R ALAM wucssccessssessssecsssessceecsessnssseesssnensaes Counsel for the applicants ORDER.
Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member As common question of facts and law govern these group of original applications, they are being heard out analogously, upon dug notice and with consent of all the sides, a common order is passed. For the sake of brevity facts are delineated from O.A.No.495/2022.
2. It is the grievance of the applicants that, in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents for Deshpran-Nandigram Railway. Project based on 0 4 a | 0A 495.22 & Ors Railway Board's circular No.RBE 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010 (Annexure AIT) the applicants being land loser 'are entitled for grant of appointment
- on compassionate ground, Initially, tt the respondents had not considered their claim for employment. assistance, but thereafter by virtue of the common order passed by this Tribunal dated 16.03. 2020 in group of OAs 181/2016 and analogous O.As filed by the applicant as well. as_ | similarly placed land losers, the respondents have started the process for consideration of their claim fot employment assistance.
After the document verification, the respondents herein vide letter/call letter dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure Afb) informed the . applicants that they have to remain present for Physical Efficiency Test scheduled on 02, 04.2022.
According to the applicants as per the terms and conditions stipulated i in RBE No. 99/2010 dated 16. 07, 2010 (Annexure A/?)., the .
appointment to the land losers would be provided on the basis of medical fitness and not based on Physical Efficiency Test (PET) which is subsequently introduced by the respondent railway authorities. Hence, aggrieved by the call letter dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure A/6) vihereby the applicants were directed to participate in PET on 02.04.2022 have filed the: present O.A (group of 'OAs)under' Section: 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) An order do issue directing the respondent authorities concerned, each one of them, their men, agents, servants, sub-ordinates and/or assigns forthwith to rescind and/or cancel and/or withdraw the impugned decision of taking Physical Efficiency. Test (PET) on 02.04.2022 conveyed by the concerned respondent authority in the purported Call Letter dated 16.03.2022 for Physical Efficiency | 'Test in: the recruitment.process. for. the posts carrying Pay Band I, Rs.5,200-
- 26, 200/- with Grade Pay Rs.1,800/- under land loser scheme for acquisition of land by the South Eastern Railway for Deshpran-Nandigram Special Railway Project;
ppl 3.1 3.2 '5 ; . OA 495.22 & Ors
b) An order do issue directing the respondent authorities concerned, each one of them, their men, agents, servants, sub-ordinates and/or assigns forthwith to give appointment to the applicant in a suitable post in the railway/South Eastern Railway in Pay Band 1, Rs.5,200-20,200/- with Grade Pay Rs.1,800/- against land acquisition by South Eastern Railway for Deshpran-Nandigram Special Railway Project 'under land loser scheme by South Eastern Railway for Deshpran- Nandigram Special Railway Project without calling him in purported Physical Efficiency Test (PET) schedule to be held on 02.04.2022;
c) An order do issue dir ecting the respondent authorities concerned, each one of them, their men, agents, servants, sub-ordinates and/or assigns forthwith to give appropriate benefit of seniority and consequential benefit keeping parity with the similarly footed persons, those had been appointed in the railway against land losers schme; |
d) An order directing the respondents to produce the entire records of the case before the Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication of the issues involved and for administering conscionable justice therein;
é) .To pass such other or further or der or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and porper."
Learned Counsel for the applicant mainly submits as under:- .
Leamed Counsel for the applicant averred tha: the respondents have granted appointment under land losers' scheme to other similarly placed persons in the same Project without calling them for PET, whereas the present applicant has been called to appear in the PET.Now the respondents cannot impose new criteria particularly when the applicant was already sofeened in 2013 and: after 10° years, it is practically impossible for the applicants to appear for Physical Efficiency Test due to their age. Therefore, the direction of the respondents for appearing in PET vide called letter dated 16.03.2022 is discriminatory, arbitrary and- bad in law.
Ld. counsel for the applicants states that since the railway authorities did not complied the order passed by this Tribunal dated 16.03 2020 in O.A 181/2016, the applicant of the said O.A fi ied Contempt 'Application being CPC 95/2020 before this Tribunal and same is pending. Further it ppl 6 OA 495.22 & Ors is stated that for alleged non compliance of the direction issued by this tribunal other similarly applicants had also filed group of CPs before this Tribunal. It is submitted that the respondents had declared the result of Document Verification of land loser (Annexure A/5 refer) wherein 251 applicants names have been include being successful in the said process of Document Verification. The applicants herein their names have been. included in the list i.e part A being successfil candidates, and has been found eligible for next step of process of physical efficiency test by the respondents, 3.3.Ld. counsel reiterate that as of now the applicants are in the age group of . 40- 50, it is practical ly not possible to participate in PET effectively. In fact the screening of the applicants were done as Jong back as 10 years ago but the respondents for one reason or another reason 1 had not processed the applicants/claims of applicants, The applicants herein are not treated equally by the respondents and'as such the introduction of the PET will | amount to deny fair consideration in the' ongoing selection:
process. Therefore, the impugned order directing the applicants for PET, is in violation of the principles of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of. India. In support of his statement he' has referred. to the CP (C) _ No.350/41/2015 in O.a.653/2014 (Sudarshan Mal & Others Vs. Union of India and Others).
3.4, Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the selection/recruitment of land loser requires to be processed in terms of RBE 99/2010 dated 16.07.201 0, the said RBE does not provide any PET for the beneficiary i.e land loser in the present case, However, duting the ongoing _ selection/recruitment process, the respondents have introduced the new ye 4, 7 OA 495.22 & Ors policy of conducting Physical Efficiency Test (PET) the said decision of the respondents as such amounts to change of rule of game/recruitment after the process begin and same is not permissible as held in plethora of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the direction of the respondents to the applicant for appearing in PET vide impugned cal] letter is contrary to the spirit and procedure laid down in RBE 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010 and same is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, the respondents have filed reply and deny the claim of the applicants. The core suymissions of the respondents' counsel are as under:-
4.1 That, the Deshpran-Nandigram Project was stalled, therefore, the land losers in respect of the said project including the applicants herein, could not bs given appointment whereas the land losers of other railway projects were given appointment.
4.2 It is stated that the applicants along with similarly situated persons approached the Tribunal by way of filing
0.A.No.350/1313/20i9 and other group of OAs for grant of employment assistance being land loser. This Tribunal by referring the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in WPCT 74/2016 as well the terms of RBE 99/2010 disposed of the said 0.As vide common order dated 16,03.2020with the following directions:-
10. in view of ihe direction of the Hon'ble High Court supra, and our revelations as indicuted ubove, we feel it appropriate in the interest of justice, to direct the respondents to undertake an identical exercise as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in 1¥PCT 74 of 2016 and issue appropriate order in regard to the present applicants within 4 months.
Accordingly, along with the present O.A., all the O.As.cited above, that related to identically circumstanced land loosers, in regard to the same ie 3 OA 495.22 & Ors project as in this O.A, or otherwise, whose right to employment under land looser category jiows from RBE 99/2010, are disposed of with identical direction. Pending \fAs.in the some of the O.As.also stands disposed of No costs."
4.3. Aggrieved by aforesaid order passed by this Tribunal the respondents filed W.P.C.T.No.28/2020 (Union of India & Others vs. Chandi Khan & Others) and WPCT.75/2020 (Union of Incia & Others vs, Jahangir Chowdhury& Others) before the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of/<lismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide judgement dated 01.07.2021 wherein the railway authorities were directed to comply with the order passed by this Tribunal dated 16.03.2020 and extended the time limit by three months for implementation of the Tribunal's order.
4.4 Pursuant to the aforesaid judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court, the Railway Adininistration sent the matter to the Railway Board for necessa:y instructions so that the order of the Tribunal can be complied with. Thereafter, to comply with direction issued by this Tribunal ana with a view to process the applications of applicant and as per the order/direction issued by the General Manager, respondent railway, the matter was expedited, document verification was done and call letters were issued for PET to the eligible candidates including the applicants herein.
4.5. According to «1c Learned Counsel for the respondents that the
- decision for conducting physical efficiency test is as such in consonance with the dictum laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in pt 9 OA 495.22 & Ors Union of India anc: Others vs. Shankar Prasad Deep Etc. Ete.
reported in {2019336 500 286.
4.6He further submits that PET is not a new idea and itis a settled procedure about selection as introduced by Railway Board vide its Letters No.E'NG)-11/96/RR-I/62/VolI dated 01.11.2006 and E(NG)}II/96/RR-1/62/Vol.1l dated 12.03.2007 and the guidelines of Railway Recruitment Board (RRC).
4.7, With respect to the allegation of the applicant that some other similarly situated persons were appointed without PET, the respondents' couns?i siaied that if any such appointment was given by the local authority, it was a mistake on the part of said local authority. The competent authority rightly not follow the said illegal practice or allow to con'inue with such erroneous procedure for selection without there being any Physical Efficiency Test. It is submitted that time and again Hon'ble Apex Court deprecate the ractice of grant of benefits in contravention of the policy in vosue. p g poucy g In support of aforesaid submission Id. counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Accuisition Officer, [(2013)14 SCC 81] and submitted that it is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that for appointment as land ioser the petitioners should have gone through the PET.
4.8. It is stated that the respondents have rightly issued call letters to the eligible candidates «{ter their document verification, for appearing in the PET for appointment under the Land Losers' Scheme.
jr 10 ; OA 495.22 & Ors Therefore, the application is misconceived and not tenable in the eye of law.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply reiterating the averment same as stated in the O.A. Additionally, it is averred in the rejoinder that the respondents have no authority to say or suggest that the 'combined order passed by this Tribunal was not applicable to all the applicants. It is also stated ihat in the event of any mistake, the same is liable to be rectified and it cannot be said that there was any mistake and it should be treated as a conscious decision of the authority. It is further pleaded that correctness of an order has io be tested with reference to the stand taken therein and not on the basis of the justification given in the counter reply. In support, the applicant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Elecizo Commissioner [1978(1) SCC 405].
6. Heard Learned Counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
7. It emerges from the record that this Tribunai in earlier round of litigation (i.e. O.A. 1313 of 2019 and other analogous 0.A.s) by referring to RBE 99/2010 as well the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in WCPT 74/2016 including the observation of Hon'ble High Court on the point of age bar of the candidates, vide common order dated 16.03.2020, this Tribunal held that applicants are the land loser whose lands have been acquired by the railway to construct a railway project. Their rights to employment assistance under railways land loser scheme flows from RBE 99/2010. Since the respondents had offered employment assistance to some of identically placed land loser against other viable project in pursuant to provision in RBE 99/2010 the respondents were
11. OA 495.22 & Ors estopped by their conduct to ceny employment assistance to the present land loser on the ground that the project in question has been stalled. The applicants right to employment is fortified RBE 99/2010. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to indertake an identical exercise as directed by Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 74/2016.
7.1. Further, it is noticed that being aggrieved by the said order passed by this Tribunal, the original respondents had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta by filing Writ Petition being WPCT 75/2020 and WPCT No. 28/2020. The Hon'ble High Court by upholding the decision of this Tribunal dated 16.3.20620 disposed of the said WPs vide order dated 01.07.2021 and observed that "however, we feel that original applicants before the Tribunal whe cre presently the respondents before us could now be held to be overage and age bar could be factor now resulted due to delay consideration of their representation in which the guidelines in WPCT 74/2976 cre to be followed".
7.2. At this stage it is apt to mention that the Hon'ble High Court in WPCT 74/2016 had directed the respondents authorities that "we hope and trust that the Screening Committee shall not cite age bar as aground for not considering the claim o7 the respondent (original applicants) and if a power of relaxation is indee:! available to consider invocation of such power, if the merit of the case sc warrants. "
7.3. Further it is brought to the knowledge of this Tribunal that in fact the respondent railway authorities by granting relaxation of age to the applicants had screened the candidates and had called them for document onl verification.
, 12 OA 495.22 & Ors
8. It is noticed that the application/claim of applicants for employment assistance in fact is governed in terms of RBE 99/2010 dated 16.07.2010, the selection process is also in terms of joint procedural order dated 03.06.2011 and as per Railway Board's letter dated 28.09.2010. In none of the said circular/policy, the Physical efficiency Test (PET) for the land losers has been prescribed. As per the Scheme in vogue at the relevant time, after the candidates successfully compieted the stage of document verification they are sent for medical examination as has been prescribed in the said policy. As noted hereinabove, the PET has been introduced subsequently. At this stage, it is apt to mention that undisputedly the respondents had already recruited some of the land losers in terms of RBE 99/2010 and without PET.
8.1. At this stage, it is apt to mention that as per the terms of the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for male candidates (i) should be able to lift and carry 35 kgs. of weight for a distance of 100 metres in two minutes in one chance without putting the weight down and (ii) should be able to run for a distance of 1000 metres in 4 minutes aid 15 seconds in one chance. For female candidates (i) should be able to lift and carry 20 kgs. of weight for a distance of 100 metres in two minutes in one chance without putting the weight down and (ii) should be able to run for a distance of 1000 metres in 5 minutes and 40 seconds in one chance. Further, condition No. 8 of the said PET stipulates that candidates will be given one chance for PET and request for second chance will not be entertained under any circumstances, 8.2. It can be seen that in the present O.A./O.A.s initially this Tribunal vide interim order dated 25.03.2022 restrained the respondents from conducting any PET. Thereafter, during pendency of the present group of O.As, the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta while dealing with Contempt petition in. respect to gn 13 OA 435.22 & Ors alleged non comp-iance of order passed by High Court in the case of land loser in CPAN No.277/2022 in W.P.C.T.75/2020 and CPAN No.713/2022 in W.P.C.T.No.28/2021 passed order dated 02.09.2022, which reads as under:-
"The peittioner shall participate in the physical and medical test. The participation in the physical test would be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners as the joint procedure prevailing in the year 2010, there was Ro requirenienst of uy pliysical test.
ft is needless to mention that petitioner who would qualify in tie pysical and medical test would be appointed within seven deys from such tests being carried out by tite concerned cutiority. The entire process shall be completed within three weeks from date. The concerned authority Should keep ti mind that no one should be precluded for lack of educational qualification, as the relevant notification pudlished ta the pear 2010 mentioned non- x, matric for being appointed for the said post ard accordingly, «il the orders preceding our order have recognized the vight to get appointment.
The eliesed contemnors . cannot change _ tite condition to the detriment of the petitioners. Let the matter stand adjourned to 23" September, 2022."
(emphasis supplied) 8.2. In light of the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, this Tribunal modified the inicrim order passed on 25.03.2022 in O.A. No.495/2022 and permitted the eligible applicants to participate in the PET vide order dated 12.09.2022 subject to outcome of ine pending O.A. 8.3. Further it is also pertinent to mention that in the pending Writ Petition of the Landloser before Hon'ble i ligh Court as well as the Contempt Petition, after taking into consideration that some of the landlosers who participated in the PET failed to qualify in the said test and also taking into considering the qh cs 14 OA 495,22 & Ors fact that long time has lapsed afier 201 0, the Hon'ble High Court opined that it may be difficult for applicanis to meet with the requirement of PET and even otherwise said condition was not stipulated in the original Scheme of 2010. Accordingly, the railway authorities were directed to send such claimants/applicants who failed in the PET for medical examination before the Railway Medical Board and gran: appointment in relevant category.
8.4. At this stage, it is also appropriate to mention that the Hon'ole High Court at Calcutta in the said referred CPAN 277/2022 in order dated 11.11.2022 after taking into consideration that the respondents disqualified some of the candidates since they failed to qualify in the Physical Efficiency Test and the fact that as such they were eligible for consideration in the year 2010 as per the Scheme RBE No. 99/2010 had observed that "after a lapse of a period of time, some of then: ry have developed some ailment or lost their physical agility and vitatizy which they possessed in 2010" Further, the Hon'ble High Court held iat the candidates can be given appointment in the Group D posts. The person who friled ih the Physical Efficiency Test may not be appointed to the post of Loader but there are many other posts where these two candidates may be accommodated. Hence candidates can be suitanly post in the Group D posts. Further in the case of one candidates namely Moni Shankar Das, directed the Medica! board to reexamine him for the purpose of ascertaining whether the candidates can be declared fit in any category or job in the Indian Railways.
8.5. It is brought to the knowledge of this Tribunal that the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court as referred hereinabove has been adhered to by the respondents. In other words thc candidates who failed in PET were also considered for medical examination and on the basis of report of medicel board ij ven 15 OA 495.22 & Ors such candidates have been further considered for employment assistance by the respondents as per his medical category.
9. This Tribunal is conscious about its limitation to interfere with the policy decision of the employer with respect to terms and conditions of recruitment and cannot substitute its own direction for the policy which was formulated by the employer as held in catena of decisions passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in the present case as discussed herein above, the selection/recruitment of the applicants/land loser is governed in terms of RBE 99/2010. The said scheme as well as the joint procedure for selection of the candidates prescribes only the medical examination of the candidates and not the PET,
10. By taking into account the various directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta as referred hereinabove including the observations made in CPAN 277/2022 vide order dated 11.11.2022, that "at this belated stage, the appiicanis/candidates (land losers) naturally may have developed some ailinen: or lost their physical agility which they possessed in the year 2019" and the directions issued upon the respondents to consider tiie case of such beneficiary by referring them to the medical board fer :necical examination and as per the medical category of the candidates, employment assistance be provided in Gr. 'D' posts or any other suiiabie posts. Further, in compliance of the said direction the respondents have processed the case of candidates who failed in PET and had sent 'hem for medical examination before the medical board for the urpose of grant of compassionate appointment in the respective medicai category determined by the said medical board, hence, in the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered 16 OA 495.22 & Ors view, that since the applicants herein are similarly situated land losers and at this belated stage, it may be difficult for them to fulfil the criteria as stipulated in the impugned call letter with regard to PET. For the ends of justice, we deem it fit to dispose of these group of O.As with a direction upon the respondents to re-examine the case of applicant/applicants for the purpose of determining their physical fitness in terms of RBE 99/2010, which, inter-alia provides for medical examination of the successful candidates after undergoing document verification.
14. Itis further clarified that the case of the applicants/candidates, who appeared or participated in Physical Efficiency Test pursuant to impugned Call letters issued to them and were successful in the said test, shall be considered for employment assistance as per their eligibility. In case of applicants/candidates who failed to qualify in the PET and who were not able to participate in PET for any reason, shall be considered in the light of the direction issued by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta as referred in Para 10 above.
12. In view of aforesaid discussions, the analogous group of O.As stands disposed of accordingly. M.A, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.
mn \ ee aa (Suchit Kumar Das ) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Administrative Member Judicial Member Sb/ss