N. Rajam, P. V. Sujatha, S. Thulasi, and J. Ruhiyanath Beevi v Union of India and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 24 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 207/2018 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 22-11-2018** ## **PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:** **1 N.RAJAM AGED 68 YEARS,W/O.M.K.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RETD.), CENTRAL EXCISE, SREEVIHAR, ALAGAPPANAGAR P.O., AMBALLOOR, THRISSUR - 680 302.** - **2 P.V.SUJATHA** **AGED 65 YEARS,W/O.N.K.KRISHNAN, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RETD.), CENTRAL EXCISE, SRIKRI SREEVILASAM ROAD, VALIYAPADAM, EDAPALLY P.O., COCHIN- 682 024.** **3 S.THULASI AGED 64 YEARS,W/O.K.K.SUKUMARAN,** **ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RETD.), CENTRAL EXCISE, KADAVIL HOUSE, ERPS NO.7, KATTITHARA ROAD, MARADU P.O.,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 304.** - **4 J.RUHIYANATH BEEVI.J.** **AGED 65 YEARS,W/O.MOHABOOB JAN SAHIB, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (RETD.), CENTRAL EXCISE, RAHATH, VELLAPPILMUKKU, MAYYANADU P.O., KOLLAM - 691 303.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SMT.PRASEEDHA T.** **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 2 ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.** - **2 CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001.** - **3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018.** - **4 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN- 682 018.** - **5 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, MANACHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** - **6 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS ICE BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **7 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN - 682 031. BY ADV. SRI.C.DINESH, CGC** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 3 ## **JUDGMENT** Ravikumar, J. The unsuccessful applicants in O.A.No.207 of 2018 assail the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, thereon. They are retirees from the post of Administrative Officer of the Central Excise Department. Petitioners 1 and 4 retired from its service in the year 2009, the second petitioner retired from its service in the year 2010 and the third petitioner retired from its service in the year 2011. In fact, the fourth petitioner had retired voluntarily from service. After their retirement, they came to know that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met subsequent to their retiremnent and after including them in the zone of consideration for preparation of select list for promotion to the post of Chief Accounts Officer in different years and even after finding them fit for promotion, declined them the benefits solely on the ground that petitioners 1 to 3 retired from service on superannuation and the 4[th] petitioner voluntarily retired from its service. It is in such circumstances that they approached the Tribunal mainly seeking the **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 4 following reliefs:- - (i) To direct the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to promote the applicants as Chief Accounts Officers based on the select panel prepared by the DPC held for the years 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 as the case may be, with all consequential benefits. - (ii) To direct the respondents to refix the pay of the applicants in the cadre of Chief Accounts Officer, w.e.f. date of notional promotion and grant arrears of pay and allowances for the period of notional promotion and revise all retirement benefits including pension, gratuity, commuted value of pension leave encashment amount etc. within a stipulated period. 2. The claims and contentions of the petitioners were stoutly resisted by the respondents by filing reply statement. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal upheld the contentions of the respondents and consequently dismissed the original application. Hence, this original petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 5 respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised the grounds unsuccessfully raised before the Tribunal and in addition to that, certain legal contentions, before us. The rival pleadings reveal certain indisputable aspects. Prior to the retirement of the petitioners, they were eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Accounts Officer in the Central Excise Department by virtue of their seniority in the post of Administrative Officer. In accordance with their seniority and after considering their service records, the DPC that met for the relevant years considered their case. In the case of the first petitioner, her case was considered by the DPC on 22.6.2013. The reply statement filed by the respondents would reveal that the first petitioner was found fit for promotion by the DPC. Since she had retired on 31.3.2009, i.e., before the date of meeting of the DPC she was not actually promoted. In the case of petitioners 2 to 4, it is evident that they were found fit for promotion by the DPC that met on 30/31 October, 2014, for the vacancy year 2010-2011. Since they retired before the date of DPC, they were not actually promoted. **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 6 These facts have been specifically mentioned in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the reply statement filed by the respondents. We are of the considered view that the tenability of the contentions raised by the petitioners to mount challenge against the order of the Tribunal has to be considered bearing in mind the aforesaid aspects. 5. As noticed hereinbefore, the first petitioner was entitled to be considered and included in the zone of consideration for preparation of select list by the DPC, for the vacancy year 2008-2009. So also, in the case of the other petitioners, they were entitled to be included in the zone of consideration for preparing the select list by the DPC for the vacancy year 2010-2011. Annexure A11 dated 8.9.1998 is the relevant office memorandum on the subject regarding the procedure to be followed by the DPC and it also suggested the model calender for DPC. The said OM also dealt with other related matters. It is stated therein that in order to complete all required action, including the approval of the competent authority, well in time (before commencement of the panel or vacancy year), the administrative action for convening DPCs in the cases requiring approval of the ACC **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 7 (ACC cases), should, as such be initiated at least eight and half months before the commencement of the vacancy year and similarly, DPCs in such cases could be held at least four months before the commencement of the vacancy year. As regards cases which do not require the approval of the ACC, the time schedule which should be followed in ACC cases should be followed in a different pattern in regard to various activities discussed thereunder. In the case of such non-ACC cases, administrative action for convening DPCs should be initiated at least 8 months before the commencement of the vacancy year and DPCs should be held at least two months before the commencement of the vacancy year. It is after prescribing such procedures to be observed by the DPC, a suggested model calender for DPCs was incorporated. The requirement to follow such procedures by the DPC and also the necessity to convene the DPC in accordance with the suggested model calender or in other words, timely DPCs were insisted in the subsequent memorandums as well, as can be seen from Annexures A10 and A12. In this context, it is also relevant to note that in Annexure 12, it was specifically stated that in **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 8 cases of non-adherence to the prescribed time-frame, steps should be taken to fix responsibility for the said lapse. Annexure A11 was issued on 8.9.1998 and Annexure A12 was issued on 14.12.2000. The fact is that despite the issuance of Annexures A11 and A12, case of the petitioners who were entitled to be considered for promotion by the DPC, were not considered for promotion before their retirement owing to the failure to convene the DPC. Thus, they were to retire from service from the post of Administrative Officer though they were eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Accounts Officer, solely due to the delay in convening the DPC. In the contextual situation, it is worthwhile to refer to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the reply statement filed by the respondents. It is only worthy to extract the said paragraphs and they read thus:- 7. It is also submitted that the process of conducting DPC for regular promotion for vacancy years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 were initiated in 2008 itself. Based on the number of vacancies in the grade of Chief Accounts Officer (Central Excise), ACR dossiers/Integrity Certificate/major, minor penalty certificate etc. during last 10 years, were **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 9 called for from field formations vide letter F No.A-32022/2/2008.Ad.IIA dated 08/07/2008. After compilation of these information which took time, the proposal for convening of meeting of DPC for promotion to the grade of Chief Accounts Officer (Central Excise) covering appointments by promotion against vacancies for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 was sent to UPSC on 06/01/2010. UPSC returned all the ACRs to the Board Office to look into the matter in terms of DOP & Ts OM dated 13/04/2010 which stipulated for calling of representation from the concerned officer where the grading is below benchmark. 8. After completion of the action above, the proposal was again referred to UPSC on 11/01/2011. UPSC raised some more queries vide its letters dated 05/04/2011 and 21/02/2012. However, since complete information/documents were not forthcoming from the zonal commissionerates, the UPSC finally returned the proposal on 24/07/2012 and requested to submit the aforesaid proposal afresh and complete in all respect under Single Window System. The proposal was re-assessed and updated. Vigilance status, integrity certificate and penalty statement etc. were called from concerned Cadre Controlling authorities under CBEC. Finally, the **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 10 DPC meeting was conducted on 22/06/2013. There was no deliberate delay for conducting DPC for regular promotion for vacancy years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The 1[st] applicant, Smt.N Rajam was found fit by the DPC held on 22/06/2013. Since she retired on 31/03/2009, i.e., before the date of DPC, she was not actually promoted. 6. The afore-extracted recital from the reply statement filed by the respondents itself would reveal that DPC could not be convened on account of any fault on the part of the petitioners, but, solely due to lapses, laches and lethargy attributable to the respondents. It is a fact discernible from the afore-extracted paragraphs that the proposal for convening DPC for preparation of select list for promotion to the grade of Chief Accounts Officer (Central Excise) covering appointments by promotion against vacancies for the year 2007-2008, 2008-09 and 2009-10 was sent to UPSC only on 6.01.2010. UPSC returned all the ACRs to the office to look into the terms of DoPT OM dated 13.4.2010 which stipulated for calling of representation from the officers concerned wherever the grading is below bench mark. Further, it would reveal that after completion of such action, the **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 11 proposal was again forwarded to UPSC only on 11.1.2011. Thereafter certain further queries were made by the UPSC as per letters dated 5.04.2011 and 21.02.2012. The aforesaid paragraphs would also reveal that after curing defects, records were forwarded to the UPSC with all the requisite details only in 2012 and consequently, the DPC meeting for the year 2008-2009 was convened only on 22.6.2013. The proposal for convening the DPC for the vacancy years 20102011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 could be sent to UPSC only on 13.10.2014 and consequently, the DPC meeting was held only on 30/31 of October, 2014. As noticed hereinbefore, the aforesaid statements of the respondents contained in the reply statement would undoubtedly go to show that the delay in the matter of convening the DPC had occurred solely due to the failure to take appropriate action for convening DPC and also to furnish necessary details to UPSC, by the respondents. Therefore, essentially the question is whether such omissions, laches or lapses on the part of the official respondents could recoil on the petitioners? The answer can be only in the negative in view of the decision of the Apex Court in **Union of India** **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 12 **v. Sadhana Khanna [(2008) 1 SCC 720** ]. The Apex Court held therein that mistake of department could not recoil on employees. In the case on hand, a scanning of the reply statement, more particularly, the afore-extracted paragraphs would make it clear that the mistake, lapses and laches from the part of the official respondents alone contributed and caused delay in convening of DPC. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to note the outcome of the DPC meeting. In paragraph 8 of the reply statement, the respondents themselves would admit that the first petitioner was found fit for promotion by the DPC held on 22.6.2013 and that, she was not actually promoted as she had retired on 31.3.2013, i.e., before the date on which DPC was convened. In the case of petitioners 2, 3 and 4, paragraph 9 of the reply statement filed by the respondents would reveal that the DPC meeting on 30/31 of October 2014 found them fit for promotion and they were not actually promoted as they retired before the date of convening of DPC. In the case of fourth petitioner, the admitted position is that she had not actually retired from service of the Central Excise on superannuation whereas she had actually retired voluntarily **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 13 from service with effect from 1.8.2009. In her case, the DPC found her fit only for the vacancy year 2010-2011. In such circumstances, we find no reason to repel the contentions of the respondents that she was not eligible for promotion for the vacancy year 2010-2011 and also to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the contention of the respondents in regard to the fourth petitioner. 7. Now, taking into account the aforesaid aspects, we will consider the question whether the order of the Tribunal as relates petitioners 1 to 3 invites interference? A scrutiny of the impugned order would reveal that the aforesaid facts discernible from the reply statement were not given due consideration by the Tribunal. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Tribunal had placed reliance heavily on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma [(2007) 1 SCC 683]** . The Tribunal had also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in **Union of India and others v. K.K.Vadera and others [AIR 1990 SC 442]** . True that in **K.K.Vadera** 's case, the Apex Court held that it could not be held that promotion should be effective from the **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 14 date when promotional posts were created and it would be effective only from the date of order of promotion. Paragraph 4 of the said decision is relevant in this context. After referring to the relevant provision of law, viz., Defence Research and Development Service Rules,1970, the Apex Court held thus:- “There is no statutory provision that the promotion to the post of Scientist 'B' should take effect from 1[st] July of the year in which the promotion is granted. It may be that, rightly or wrongly, for some reason or other, the promotions were granted from 1[st] July, but we do not find reason for the any justifying direction given by the Tribunal that the promotions of the respondents to the posts of Scientists 'B' should be with effect from the date of creation of these promotional posts” 8. Evidently, that was a case where the respondents before the Apex Court were considered for promotion in tune with relevant rules and were given promotion. Virtually, it is seeking retrospectivity to their promotion that they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Evidently, their claim was that their promotion should be ordered to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 15 posts and not from the date of substantial appointment. It is that contention which was found favour with the Tribunal but ultimately interfered with by the Apex Court. The decision in **Dinesh Kumar Sharma** 's case is also virtually on the same lines. There, seniority was granted from date of substantive appointment. The claim of the respondent Dinesh Kumar Sharma was for reckoning his seniority from the date of occurrence of vacancy. The Apex Court held that the right to constitute selection committee against a vacancy vested in the Government which after adopting due procedure for selection, effects substantive appointment to a promotion post and therefore, the appointee would not be having a right to claim promotion and seniority from the date when the vacancy arose and his seniority could be reckoned only from the date of substantive appointment. We are at a loss to understand as to how this decision also could be applied to defeat the claim of the petitioners, in the case on hand. 9. It is to be noted that there is a clear mandate for convening of DPC in a timely manner, as can be seen from Annexures A11 and A12. There is nothing on record which would reveal that timely **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 16 action was initiated for convening the DPC. We have already taken note of the contentions of the respondents themselves in their reply statement. In fact, those contentions would reflect and reveal only their lethargic attitude and lapses in the matter of convening of DPC at the appropriate time, adhering to the instructions in Annexures A11 and A12. Above all, the facts discernible from the said statement is that the petitioners 1 to 3 were entitled to be considered for promotion by the DPC prior to the retirement and in the DPC which actually considered their claim, found them fit for promotion. As noticed hereinbefore, in the case of the first petitioner, the DPC that met on 22.6.2013 found that she was fit for promotion for the vacancy year 2008-2009. In the case of petitioners 2 and 3, the DPC that met on 30/31 October, 2014 found them fit for promotion for the vacancy year 2010-2011. They were not promoted based on such assessment as by the time DPC convened and assessed them and prepared select list for promotion, they had retired from the service. In such circumstances, when once it is evident that the delay on the part of the respondents in convening DPC at the appropriate time caused **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 17 considerable prejudice to the petitioners despite being found fit for promotion, the question is whether they are entitled to any benefit based on such assessment by the DPC in regard to their eligibility for promotion. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in O.P.(CAT)No.1801/2013 that arose from the order in O.A.No.996/2012. The applicant in the said O.A Sri.K.T.Kanakarajan was holding rank No.34 in the All India seniority list of officers in grade of Administrative officers/Assistant Chief Accounts Officer/Examiner of Accounts as on 1.4.2007 just below the rank held by the first petitioner herein. He approached the Tribunal prior to his retirement. He was granted promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy with all consequential benefits including monetary benefits. It is aggrieved by the order in O.A 996/2012 that the official respondents moved this Court by filing O.P.(CAT) No.1801/2013. The said original petition was dismissed as per Annexure A6 judgment dated 3.6.2013. The Division Bench made an observation, which according to us is relevant for this case as well, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioners in the said O.P **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 18 ## which are similar to the contentions raised herein. The Division Bench observed:- The plea that no promotion order was issued is merely one which exposes the Establishment's failure in adhering to the model DPC calender and also matters connected with promotion of personnel in a multi hierarchy institution. We are, therefore, incomplete agreement with the views of the learned Tribunal that the applicant cannot be held high-and-dry and is entitled to be considered as one eligible for being promoted as he was included in the select list of 2008-09. We, therefore, find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the impugned direction issued by the Tribunal. The original petition fails. In the result, this original petition is dismissed _in limine_ . 10. There is no case for the respondents that Annexure A6 was successfully challenged before the Apex Court. In fact, the position revealed from Anexure A7 is that the order in O.A.No.996/2012 was complied with by the respondents. As noticed hereinbefore, the applicant in O.A No.996/2012 was junior to the petitioners 2 and 3. But at the same time, it is evident that in this case, the first petitioner was found fit for promotion and included in the select list for 2008- **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 19 2009 and in the case of petitioners 2 and 3, they were found fit and included in the select list only for the year 2010-2011. Indubitably, but for the fact that they had retired from service before the date of convening of the DPC, they would have been promoted. True that persons retired prior to the date of DPC, despite their inclusion in a select list, could not be granted actual promotion. This position is clear from Annexure A10 OM dated 14.11.2014. It was held therein that in the case of such retired officials, they would be having no right for actual promotion. It is also relevant to note that in the said OM, it is further stated that the very purpose of issuance of earlier OM viz., OM No.22011/4/98/Estt (D) dated 12.10.1998 viz., Annexure A9, was also taken note of. Going by the said O.M dated 12/10/1998 as well, employees retired prior to the convening of DPC would be having no right for actual promotion. There cannot be two views on that question as actual promotion can be granted only to serving employees and not to retired employees. However, that itself cannot be a reason to contend that an employee who was actually found fit by the DPC, which was not convened in time and actually convened subsequent to **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 20 the retirement of the employee concerned could not be granted the benefit to which he is legally entitled to viz., the legal entitlement to get notional promotion, provided he had not contributed to or caused delayed consideration of his claim. The question is, in the case of petitioners 1 to 3, whether such a ground is available to the respondents. Unhesitatingly, we answer it in the negative. In the case of the first petitioner, she was found entitled to be promoted by the DPC that met on 22.6.2013 for the vacancy year 2008-2009. As noticed hereinbefore, she retired from service on 31.3.2009. Obviously, there occurred a delay of more than 4 years in consideration of her claim for inclusion in the select list for promotion by the DPC. The fact is that despite being found fit for promotion, she was denied the benefit solely on the reason that she retired from service before the date of convening of DPC. In the case of petitioners 2 and 3, they were to be considered for promotion for the vacancy year 2010-2011. While they were in service, the DPC was not convened and we have already taken note of the fact as to how and why there occurred delay in the matter of convening of the DPC. In their case, **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 21 the DPC was convened only on 30/31 October 2014 and they were found fit for promotion for the vacancy year 2010-2011. By that time, they had retired from service. Despite being found fit for promotion, they were also denied the benefit of such assessment and inclusion in the select list solely for the reason that they retired from service before the date of convening of the DPC. In the said circumstances, they joined the first petitioner to file the aforementioned O.A that culminated in the impugned order. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to uphold the contention of the respondents that their claim is highly belated. It is also a fact that the O.A was not dismissed on the ground of delay, but it was considered and dismissed on merits. 11. As noticed hereinbefore, the Tribunal had virtually considered their entitlement in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Dinesh Kumar Sharma** 's case and **K.K.Vadera** 's case. We have already noted that these are cases where persons who had obtained promotions approached the Tribunal seeking retrospectivity to their promotion from the date of occurrence of vacancy. The case on hand is totally different. Admittedly, the reply statement filed by the **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 22 respondents would reveal that there occurred undue delay in the matter of convening of the DPC in accordance with the procedures and it is only subsequent to the retirement of the petitioners that they were considered by the DPC and found fit for promotion from a point of time when they were in service. What could not be granted in such circumstances is only actual promotion. Despite their inclusion in the select list for the relevant vacancy year, they were not promoted, solely due to the fact by that time they had retired from service. We have no hesitation to hold that in such circumstances and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Sadhana Khanna'** s case that the mistakes on the part of the department could not be permitted to recoil on the employee concerned. In view of the indisputable position obtained in this case, it is evident that the petitioners are made to suffer denial of actual promotion solely due to the delay in the matter of convening of DPC, at the appropriate time occasioned due to the mistakes/laches on the part of the official respondents. We say so, because the DPC which considered their claim, found them fit for promotion from a previous **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 23 year when they were actually in service. In such circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to get notional promotion based on the finding of the DPC that they were fit for promotion and also based on their subsequent inclusion in the select list. As noticed hereinbefore, in the case of the first petitioner, her immediate junior K.T Kanakarajan was given the benefit. True that he had approached the Tribunal while he was in service and he was given all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits. The petitioners had only approached the Tribunal in the subsequent year. In such circumstances, we are of the view that they are entitled to get all benefits flowing from notional promotion. In such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal, which is an outcome of non-consideration of the aforementioned relevant facts, is liable to be interfered with. Consequently, the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.207 of 2018 dated 22.11.2018 is set aside as relates petitioners 1 to 3. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondents to issue appropriate orders granting notional promotion to petitioners 1 to 3 based on their inclusion in the relevant select lists prepared by the DPC and approved by the Government and **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** 24 based on such notional promotion to re-fix their pension and pensionary benefits after fixing their pay in the promotional post. In the case of the fourth petitioner, we have already found that the order in O.A No.207/2018 invites no interference and in otherwords, to the extent it pertains to the fourth petitioner it is maintained. We may have hastened to add that we have considered only that part of the order dealing with O.A.No.207/2018. The directions as above shall be complied with as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** **C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** 25 ## **O.P.(CAT).24/2019** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTO COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.207/16.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.22/11/2018 IN OA NO.207/2016.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** Spc/