M.G. Venugopalan v Union of India and C.P. Thomas v Union of India (OP(CAT) Nos. 2442/13 & 2/15)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1941** **OP (CAT).No.2442 OF 2013(Z)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ## **M.G.VENUGOPALAN** **MEMBER (RETD), CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS 'SREEPADAM', MAMANGALAM, COCHIN-682 025.** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.** - **2 SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF PENSION AND PENSIONERS' WELFARE LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110 003.** - **3 PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, RFA BARRACKS, CHURCH ROAD HUTMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001.** - **4 PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER CENTRAL PRISON ACCOUNTING OFFICE, TRIKOOT II COMPLEX, BHAIKAJICAMA PLACE, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI-110 066.** - **5 THE SENIOR MANAGER DENA BANK, NAPEANSEA ROAD BRANCH, SWAPNALOK, L.J.MARG, MUMBAI - 400 026.** - **R1 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R1-4 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R5 BY ADV. SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA** _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 2 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.T.V.VINU** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).2/2015(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1941** **OP (CAT).No.2 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 180/2014 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **C.P.THOMAS AGED 80 YEARS MEMBER(RETD),DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,ID,KATTIKARAN TOWERS,COCHIN 682 018** **BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF PENSION**| ||**AND PERNSIONER'S WELFARE,LOKNAYAK BHAVAN,,NEW DELHI**| ||**110003**| |**2**|**THE SECRETARY**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF POSTS SANCHAR BHAVAN,20,ASHOKA**| ||**ROAD,NEW DELHI 110001**| |**3**|**THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS P0 DEPARTMENT OF**| ||**POSTSKERALA CIRCLESASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**695**| _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 4 **4 THE POST MASTER HEAD POST OFFICE,ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 011** **R1-4 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R1-4 BY SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).2442/2013(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 5 **“C.R”** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN & V.G.ARUN, JJ.** ----------------------------------------------- OP(CAT).No. 2442 of 2013 & OP(CAT).No.2 of 2015 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of November, 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** ## _**Arun, J.**_ The applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos.297 of 2012 and 157 of 2014 are the petitioners in O.P(CAT).Nos.2442 of 2013 and 2 of 2015 respectively. The essential facts necessary for adjudication of the issue canvassed in these original petitions are narrated hereunder, with reference to the parties and the exhibits as in the original applications; The applicant in O.A.No.157 of 2014 retired as Member, Postal Board on 30.6.1992. Based on the recommendations of the 6[th] Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scale of Member, Postal Board was revised to the Higher Administrative Grade plus (HAG+) scale of Rs.75500-80000, with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, the applicant's pension was revised to Rs.37,750/-. Later, as per Annexure 4 dated 24.2.2014, the pension of the _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 6 applicant was re-fixed as Rs.33,500/-. The reason for such revision and reduction of pension was that the applicant had retired from the scale of Rs.7300-7600, the corresponding revised scale of which was Rs.67000-79000, as on 1.1.2006. That, in terms of Paragraph 4.2 of the Department of Pen & Pensioners welfare O.M.No.38/37/08-P&Pen(A) dated 1.9.2008, pension is to be revised, corresponding to the pre-revised scale of pay from which the pensioner had retired. This position was confirmed vide O.M.No.38/37/08-P&Pen(A) dated 28.1.2013 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. Aggrieved, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to set aside Annexure A4 and for a declaration that he is entitled to 50% of the revised pay of the Member, Department of Posts as pension with effect from 1.1.2006. 2. The applicant in O.A.No. 597 of 2012 retired on 31.5.2003 as Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). At the time of retirement, the applicant was drawing basic pay of Rs.24,700/- in the pay scale Rs.24050-26000. On the basis of the recommendations of the 6[th] Central Pay Commission, the pay scale was revised to Rs.75500-80000 and _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 7 consequently, the applicant's pension was refixed at Rs.37,750/with effect from 1.1.2006. With effect from 24.12.2008, the pay scale of Member, CBEC was up-graded to the apex scale of Rs.80000/-, applicable to the rank of Special Secretary to the Government of India. The applicant sought revision of his pension to Rs.40,000/- based on the up-gradation of pay scale of Member, CBEC with effect from 24.12.2008. His request in this regard having not been considered, the original application was filed seeking a declaration that the applicant is entitled for pension @ 50% of the pay of the Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, with effect from 24.12.2008. 3. In O.A.No.157 of 2014, the controversy was as to the pay scale of Member, Postal Service Board, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the applicant had retired. The applicant contended that the revised pay scale of Member Postal Board is Rs.75500-80000. According to the respondents, the revised pay scale applicable is Rs.67000-79000. Based on the records produced by the respondents, the Tribunal found that the pay scale at which the applicant had retired from service was Rs.7300-100-7600, which corresponded to the Grade S-30 with _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 8 scale of pay Rs.22400-525-24500 and the corresponding 6[th] CPC pay scale is Rs.67000-79000. It was therefore held that the revised pension of the applicant would work out to Rs.33,500/and not Rs.37,750/-; ie: half of the last pay drawn or would have drawn in the revised scale. It was found that the applicant had failed to prove that the revised scale applicable to him is the HAG+ scale of Rs.75500-80000. 4. In O.A.No.597 of 2012, it was found that the upgradation of the post and pay of Member, CBEC brought about by Annexure A3 order had nothing to do with the implementation of the recommendations of the 6[th] Central Pay Commission. It was noted that the effect of Annexure A3 order was only from 24.12.2008, the date on which the CBEC (Chairman and Members) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2008 came into effect. Hence it was observed that with effect from 24.12.2008, there is a distinct class of Members of CBEC with the apex scale of Rs.80000, with the rank of Special Secretary to the Government of India and that the petitioner does not belong to that class. It was held that the upgraded scale of Member CBEC was not in any Pay Band and that, being a stand alone fixed apex _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 9 scale, the question of reckoning the minimum of that scale for fixing the revised pay scale of the petitioner does not arise. It was held that the term 'up-gradation' implies increase in pay and rank whereas the term 'revision' implies examination and correction or change, which can be upward or downward. 5. By the impugned orders, the Tribunal dismissed the original applications. Even though the applicants sought review of the orders, the Tribunal dismissed the review applications finding no error apparent on the face of the order and on the premise that the applicants were actually seeking a fresh look and readjudication of the matter. 6. Heard Sri.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T.V. Vinu learned Central Government Counsel. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged before the Tribunal and drew our attention to Annexure A10 order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal produced in O.A.No.597 of 2012, wherein a similar issue pertaining to the 5[th] CPC was considered and answered in favour of the pensioners. It is submitted that _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 10 revision of pay scale of pensioners are dependent on the revision of pay scale of the post from which the pensioner had retired and not the pay scale at the time of his/her retirement. Otherwise it would lead to an anomalous situation where, based on the date of retirement, varied pension is drawn by pensioners, who had retired from the same post. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in _**State of Punjab and others Vs Rafiq Masih**_ [(2015) 4 SCC 334] to contend that in the case of the petitioner in O.P.CAT 2 of 2015 the pension granted was subsequently reduced and recovery effected, which action is opposed to the principles laid down by the Apex Court. 8. The learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the issue was considered by the Apex Court in _**K.S.Krishnaswamy and Others v. Union of India and Another**_ [(2007) 2 SCC (L&s) 491], and Annexure A10 judgment was rendered without taking note of that decision. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in OP(CAT).No.198 of 2017 and connected cases had considered the same question in the context of the 6[th] CPC itself and had ruled against the pensioners. 9. In view of the contention that the issue is covered by the _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 11 Division Bench judgment in OP(CAT).No.198 of 2017 and connected cases, it is only appropriate to consider that judgment. In OP(CAT).No.198 of 2017 and connected cases, after extracting paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of O.M dated 1.9.2008, the Division Bench held as follows: _“Thus, a scanning of paras 4.1 and 4.2 of the said O.M. dated 1.9.2008 will reveal that the consolidated pension/family pension has to be worked out in accordance with the provisions under para 4.1 and para 4.2 is there to ensure that the fixation of the revised pension/family pension shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, it will be 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale. Thus, it is evident on computing the revised pension the pre-2006 pensioners would be entitled to get the higher among the amount on working it out in accordance with para 4.1 and para 4.2 and at any rate, they would get an amount as worked out in accordance with para 4.2 as the minimum revised pension. In the light of the unambiguous provision under para 4.2 of the said O.M., there can be no doubt with respect to the mode of calculation of the minimum assured revised - pension. The words 'corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired' invite no further interpretation especially in the light of the decision in_ _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 12 _**Krishnaswamy** 's case (supra). As already noticed, the Apex Court in_ _**Krishnaswamy's** case held that an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of a Pay Commission is a corresponding increase in the pay scale and not of the post._ _The Apex Court has also made it very clear that recommendations of the Pay Commission are subject to the acceptance/rejection with modification of the appropriate Government. Hence, when O.M. dated 1.9.2008 provides for taking into account the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired there can be no way to take '50% of minimum of the pay band plus the grade pay with respect to the scale of pay applicable to the post in question' and it can only be what is specifically provided thereunder viz., '50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired'.”_ Ultimately, the Division Bench encapsulated the question and answered it as follows: “ _37. Therefore, the question is what was the legally sustainable contention and supporting material available to uphold the claim of the respondent for the grade pay of Rs.4600/- ? Evidently, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent herein/the applicant that in view of the decision of this Court in O.P. (CAT)No.169/2015, the computation of pension based on the decision of implementation on the recommendations of the VIth CPC_ _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 13 _has to be 50% of the pay scale with respect to the scale of pay applicable to the post in question and not the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay from which the pensioner had retired. This is evident from the recital in paragraph 8 of the impugned order which would reveal that the contention of the respondent herein that as per the VIth CPC the revised pay scale of Postmaster HSG-I is Rs.9300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006 was taken into account by the Tribunal for holding that though the respondent herein had retired from service in the pay scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/-, on account of his promotion as HSG-I after his retirement the pay scale applicable to HSG-I at the time of his retirement should be his pre-revised pay in terms of paragraph 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008. Since the corresponding revised pay of Deputy Postmaster HSG-I after the VIth CPC was Rs.9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006 his pension has to be fixed as 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- or as per the minimum pay in the_ _pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,600/- as per the fitment table, whichever is more beneficial to the petitioner. Thus, it is obvious that virtually, the reason for holding that the respondent herein is entitled to a revised pension of 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs.9300- 34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- is that it is the scale of pay, in fact, pay band applicable to the post of Deputy Postmaster. This finding is, no doubt, in_ _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 14 _conflict with the binding decision in_ _**Krishnaswamy's case (Supra)** . We have already found that the decision in O.P. (CAT)No.169/2015 was rendered without referring to the decision of the Apex Court in_ _**Krishnaswamy's case (supra)** . In such circumstances, in the light of the decision in_ _**Krishnaswamy's case (supra)** and_ _**Sethumadhavan's case (supra)** , the said direction cannot be sustained. In short, in view of the factual matrix obtained in this case, the respondent is entitled only to the grade pay of Rs.4,200/- which is the normal replacement pay structure Grade Pay and he cannot, as a matter of right, claim Rs.4,600/- as Grade Pay for the purpose of calculating his revised pension based on the decision in implementing the recommendations of the VIth CPC. Hence, the calculation of revised pension as per VIth CPC corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which he retired can be taken only as Rs.9300-34,800 + G.P. Rs.4200/-, based on para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 can only be Rs.6750/-. At the same time, calculation of revised pension as per para 4.1 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 is Rs.8842/-. The respondent was not able to establish that he is entitled to get Rs.9,230/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006. As regards the first prayer of the respondent in O.A.No.526/2016 for a declaration that he is entitled to revised pension based on the pay band plus grade applicable to HSG-I w.e.f. 1.1.2006, we have already found the prayer is impermissible to be granted in view of the decision in_ _**Krishnaswamy's case (supra)** . In short, the respondent_ _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 15 _herein/the applicant is entitled to get Rs.8842/- only as his revised pension. The respondent did not have a case that the calculation of his revised pension, as mentioned in the O.P., in terms of para 4.1 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 or that it is below the amount of revised pension grantable in terms of para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008. The upshot of the discussion is that the respondent herein/the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Original Application and therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. In the result, this O.P. is allowed and the impugned order in O.A.No.526/2016 is set aside. As a necessary sequel, the said O.A. will stand dismissed.”_ 10. Thus, after considering the contentions in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in _**K.S.Krishnaswamy**_ , the Division Bench proceeded to hold that revision of pension is based on the scale of pay at which the pensioner had retired and not on upgradation of the post from which he/she had retired. The Division Bench further found that Annexure A10 decision of the Principal Bench in O.A.NO.655 of 2010 and connected cases was rendered without reference to the decision in _**Krishnaswamy's case**_ , and therefore rendered _per incuriam._ 11. We are in respectful agreement with the findings in O.P(CAT).No.198 of 2017 and connected cases. The revision of pension is in relation to the Pay Band plus the Grade Pay _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 16 - corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired and not corresponding to the up-graded pay scale of the post from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, any up-gradation and revision of pay scale brought about to the post from which the petitioners had retired, will not result in the revision of their pension, which is dependent on revision of the pay scale, from which the petitioners had retired. 12. We find the other reasons stated in the impugned orders also to be well founded. As found by the Tribunal based on Annexures R8, R9 and R10 in O.A.No.157 of 2014, the pay scale applicable to the applicant was Rs.67000-79000, which is not an HAG+ scale. Hence, re-fixation of pension at Rs.33,500/- was in order. The finding in O.A.No.597 of 2012 that up-gradation of the post and pay scale of Member, CBEC had nothing to do with the recommendations of the 6[th] Central Pay Commission and, as such, cannot be the basis for seeking corresponding revision, is also correct. 13. The contention based on _**Rafiq Masih**_ cannot hold good for the reason that the petitioners are not Class-III or Class-IV employees and the excess payment was not made for a period _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 17 of more than five years. The other situations cited in _**Rafiq Masih**_ are also not attracted. The recovery is definitely not iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. The issue in OP(CAT).No. 2 of 2015 is only of correction of a mistake committed, on the basis of a wrong computation made at the instance of the petitioner. 14. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The original petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** _vgs_ x _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 18 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 2442/2013** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OM F.NO.38/37/08P&PW(A) PT.1 DATED 14/10/08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/11/2008 SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1/2009 DATED 01/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22/01/2009 SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF OM F.NO.38/37/08 P&PW(A) DATED 11/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/03/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE DIRECTOR (HQRS. ADMN) DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/10/2011 SENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/02/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION DATED 26/03/2012. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/11/2011 IN OA NO.0655/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES. ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/07/2007 IN OA NO.561/2006. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.NO.597/2012 DT.6-6-2013 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.38/37/OP&PW(A) DT.1-9-2008 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.F.NO.38/37/O-P&PW(A) DT.1-9-2008** _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 19 **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS(CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS) RECRUITMENT RULES, 2006 DT.2-2-2006 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS(CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS) RECRUITMENT AMENDMENT RULES, 2012 DT.30-5-2012. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF OA.NO.597/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN OA.597/2012 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN OA.597/2012** _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 20 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 2/2015** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.8144/PEN/GENL./PPO 6040/IPS/TVM DATED 24/02/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/06/1992 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE CPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER (PPO) NO. 60901LPS/TVM. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FITMENT TABLE ANNEXED TO CCS (RP) RULES. ANNEXURE R1 F. NO.38/37/08-P&PW(A) DATED 1/09/08. ANNEXURE R2 NO.33-16/2008-PA9 PE(A) DATED 29/09/2008. ANNEXURE R3 NO.38-37/08-PW(A) DATED 14/10/08. ANNEXURE R4 NO.38-37/08-PW(A) DATED 20/08/09. ANNEXURE R5 NO.38-37/08-PW(A) DATED 28/01/2013. ANNEXURE R6 NO.38-37/08-PW(A) DATED 13/02/2013. ANNEXURE R7 NO.38-37/08-PW(A) DATED 03/10/08. ANNEXURE R8 NO.52-133/99/PA(PEA) D-2011 DATED 29/01/2014.. ANNEXURE R9 NO.8144/PEN/GENL/PPO 6040/IPS/TVM DATED 24/02/2014. EXHIBIT P1 PHOTO COPY OF OA NO 180/00157/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT F NO 38/37/08-P & PW(A) 1-9-08. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT.** _**OP(CAT).2442/13 & 2/15**_ 21 **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER IN OA 180/00157/2014. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTO COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER DT 9-12-2014 IN RA NO 30/2014.**