OP (CAT) Nos. 94 & 212 of 2018: P. P. George; Thomas John v KVIC and Union of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 94 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 3/2016 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** **P.P.GEORGE, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.T.PAULOSE, EXPROJECT MANAGER/DIRECTOR (RETD), KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, PURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, H NO.121, 12TH STREET, MUSEUM CROSS LANE, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR-680020.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.ASHA BABU SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR SRI.G.RENJITH SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.T.H.ARAVIND** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION 3 IRLA ROAD, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI-400056, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.** - **2 THE MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110011.** **BY ADVS.R1 SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM R2 SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.02.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).212/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940** **OP (CAT).No. 212 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 775/2016 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 24-10-2017** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** **THOMAS JOHN AGED 62 YEARS S/O O.V.JOHN, ONASSRIL HOUSE, AMBADIMALA, THIRUVANKULAM, NOW RESIDING AT ONASSERIL HOUSE, VASANTHA NAGAR, KUREEKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 305** **BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 011.** - **2 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, 3, IRLA ROAD, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI 400 056** O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 3 **3 THE DIRECTOR,SUB OFFICE, KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, SUB OFFICE, NADATHRA P.O, TRISSUR DISTRICT 680 751.** **BY ADVS. R2 & R3 SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM R1 SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.02.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).94/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 4 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ravikumar, J.** Essentially, issues intrinsically interconnected involve for resolution in both these Original Petitions arising from the common order dated 24.10.2017 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in T.A.No.3 of 2016 and O.A.No.775 of 2016, respectively. The petitioners are employees of the Trading Establishment of Khadi & Village Industries Commission (for short `KVIC'). They approached the Tribunal by filing the above mentioned T.A. and O.A. on being aggrieved by their non-inclusion as beneficiaries of Khadi & Village Industries Commission Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1984 (for brevity `1984 Pension Regulations'). The applicant in T.A.No.3 of 2016 had originally approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.4837 of 2011 and upon constitution of the Central Administrative Tribunal it was transferred to the Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.3 of 2016. In T.A.No.3 of 2016 the petitioner in O.P.(CAT)No.94 of 2018 sought for the following reliefs:- - “i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant benefits of the pension to the petitioner. O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 5 - ii) To declare that the inaction on the part of the respondent to deny pension to the petitioner while granting pensionary benefits to similarly placed persons in other divisions of KVIC, is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. - iii) To declare that the distinction created by the 1[st] respondent among the employees of it as employees working in the regular establishment and the trading wing is ultra vires the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Regulations, 1958 and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. - iv) To declare that the Rule 2 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Pension) Rules, 1984 to the extent that it excludes the employees of the Commission in the trading establishment from the applicability of the above said regulations is violative of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act and the regulations framed thereunder and the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” ## O.A.No.775 of 2016 was filed seeking the following reliefs:- - “i. To direct the respondents to grant the benefits of the statutory pension to the applicant and to draw and disburse the consequential benefits including the pension and pensionary benefits with effect from the date of superannuation of the applicant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date the amount fell due till the date of actual payment; - ii. To declare that the inaction on the part of the respondent to deny pension to the applicant while granting statutory pensionary benefits to similarly placed officials in the other divisions of KVIC, as wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 6 - iii. To declare that the Rule 2 & 3 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Pension) Rules, 1984 to the extent that it excludes the employees of the Commission under the trading establishment is illegal, unsustainable in law and ultra vires and to quash the same; - iv. To pass appropriate orders or directions the 1[st] respondent to take a final decision and approval to the proposal submitted by the committee in the matter of absorption of employees in the trading establishment; - v. To declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted the 1[st] and 2[nd] financial upgradation under the Assured Progression Scheme with effect from 15.4.1993 and 15.4.2005 respectively on completion of 12 and 24 years of service and to direct the respondents to grant the same with effect from the due dates and to draw and disburse the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances and pension and pensionary benefits with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date the amount fell due till the date of actual payment; - vi. To declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted the 3[rd] financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Progression Scheme with effect from the date of completion of 30 years of service in the post of Senior in Charge and to direct the respondents to grant the same with effect from the due dates and to draw and disburse the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances and pension and pensionary benefits with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date the amount fell due till the date of actual payment;” 2. From the prayers sought for in both the applications it is evident that the applicants had sought for a declaration that Rule 2 of Khadi & Village Industries Commission Employees (Pension) Rules, O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 7 1984 to the extent it excludes the employees of the Commission in the trading wing from its purview is illegal and unsustainable in law. In T.A.No.3 of 2016, in fact, the said provision was sought to be declared as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, illegal. 3. The respondents filed a reply statement and resisted the claims and contentions of the petitioners. Essentially, their core contention was that the trading wing did not belong to the regular establishment. `KVIC' has been established as a body corporate in terms of the provisions under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956 and KVIC has created a separate trading establishment exclusively for the purpose of undertaking its trading activities and to provide marketing support and raw material supply to its implementing agencies. They also contended that the trading establishment was created by the KVIC on its own without prior approval of Government of India and the salaries and emoluments of the employees in the said establishment are being met from the trading margin earned by its trading units and further that no financial assistance is provided by the Government of India for meeting the nonplan expenditure like salaries and allowances of the employees of the trading establishment. The entire expenditure of the regular O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 8 establishment of KVIC is being borne by the Government of India out of its budgetary resources, it is stated therein. Thus, in short, their contention is that since the trading establishment does not belong to the regular establishment of KVIC, as a matter of right, the employees in the trading establishment, which is not a regular establishment of KVIC, cannot claim pension and that they are entitled only to the EPF Scheme and the other benefits specifically made available to them. 4. As noticed hereinbefore, the challenge of the applicants against their non-inclusion in the `1984 Pension Regulations' was founded on the ground of arbitrary discrimination. According to them, there was absolutely no reason or justification for classifying the employees of KVIC as employees belonging to the regular establishment and belonging to trading establishment, for the purpose of implementation of 1984 Pension Regulations and that the classification got no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the introduction of 1984 Pension Regulations. In such circumstances, the said classification and the consequential denial of benefits flowing from 1984 Pension Regulations to the employees in the trading establishment invites interference and that was rejected by the Tribunal without properly appreciating the contentions, it is submitted. The impugned order would reveal that after considering the rival contentions the O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 9 Tribunal upheld the stand of the respondents that trading establishment is not belonging to the regular establishment of KVIC and merely because occasionally persons belonging to trading wing being transferred to the regular establishment could not confer any right on the employees of the trading wing to claim that they should be treated at par with employees belonging to the regular establishment, for the purpose of pension. It is also discernible from the impugned order that in arriving at such a finding the Tribunal relied on the verdict of the Delhi High Court in **Khadi Gram Bhawan Karamchari Sangh** v. **Union of India (C.W.P.No.2151 of 1989),** which in turn was rendered relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in **Yarramsetty Murlidhar** v. **Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Writ Petition No.2553 of 1987).** Following the said judgments the Tribunal virtually upheld the exclusion of the employees of the trading wing of KVIC from the purview of 1984 Pension Regulations. At the same time, finding that in O.A.No.775 of 2016 the applicant besides mounting challenge against the denial of pension also claimed benefits of first and second financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression scheme (ACP) and third financial upgradation under the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme (MACP) the Tribunal considered his entitlement to such reliefs and O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 10 ultimately directed the official respondents to grant him the 1[st] and 2[nd] financial upgradations under the ACP scheme with effect from 15.4.1993 and 15.4.2005 respectively and the 3[rd] financial upgradation under the MACP scheme on his completion of 30 years of service, as per the relevant schemes. At the same time, the Tribunal confined the entitlement to pecuniary benefits to three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Application but, made it clear that the consequential benefits, if any, shall be reflected in his other retiral benefits. In short, O.A.No.775 of 2016 was thus partly allowed and in respect of the challenge against the denial of pension under the 1984 Pension Regulations the said Original Application as also T.A.No.3 of 2016 were dismissed. In fact, a perusal of the impugned common order would reveal that along with the aforesaid Original Application and Transfer Application another Original Application and Transfer Application viz., O.A.No.448 of 2016 and T.A.No.5 of 2016 were also considered and dismissed by the Tribunal. It is to be noted that even then only two original petitions are filed against the common order. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Adv.Sri.T.Rajasekharan Nair and Adv.Sri.Legi Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for Khadi & Village Industries Commission and also Adv.Sri.T.V.Vinu, the learned Central Government Counsel. O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 11 6. At the outset, it is to be noted that though the Tribunal had issued direction to grant the applicant in O.A.No.775 of 2016 the 1[st] and 2[nd] financial upgradations under the ACP scheme and 3[rd] financial upgradtion under the MACP scheme, none of the respondents has chosen to challenge the order in O.A.No.775 of 2016 to the said extent. True that the challenge against the 1984 Pension Regulations made by the applicant therein as also the applicants in the other original applications was repelled by the Tribunal as per the common order. In such circumstances, in these original petitions, we are only called upon to consider whether the disinclination shown by the Tribunal to grant the benefits flowing from 1984 Pension Regulations to the applicants therein/the petitioners herein belonging to the category of employees in the trading wing of KVIC invites any interference or not. 7. As noticed hereinbefore, the objectionable part of `1984 Pension Regulations', according to the applicants/petitioners herein is Regulation No.2 to the extent it made the scheme inapplicable to the employees of the KVIC in the trading wing. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to extract Regulation 2 of `1984 Pension Regulations' which reads thus:- “2. Save as otherwise provided in these regulations, these regulations shall apply to all employees of the commission borne on the regular establishment of the O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 12 Commission appointed substantively to posts under the said Commission, but shall not apply to the employees of the commission in the trading establishment.” An explanation is given in the second proviso to Regulation 2 of the 1984 Pension Regulations. Explanation (i) relates to employees of KVIC borne in the regular establishment and Explanation (ii) relates to employees of KVIC in the trading establishment. Explanation (ii) reads thus:- (ii)”Employees of the Commission in the trading establishment” means the employees of the Commission whose expenditure is met from the earnings of trading activities for which funds are provided from loans received from the Central Government.” 8. We have already taken note of the fact that the precise case of the official respondents is that the expenditure of the regular establishment is met from the budgetary allocations of the Central Government. There is no dispute with respect to the position that the applicants/the petitioners herein were given appointment in the trading wing of KVIC. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P. (CAT)No.212 of 2018 would admit and contend that the applicant therein is an employee of the trading wing and that the trading wing does not belong to the regular establishment. But, at the same time, it is contended that for the purpose of extension of the benefit of 1984 O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 13 Pension Regulations, it is unreasonable to make distinction between employees belonging to the trading wing and employees belonging to the regular establishment. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P.(CAT)No.94 of 2018 would contend that the distinction created by the first respondent therein viz., KVIC among its employees, as employees working in the regular establishment and in the trading wing, is _ultra vires_ the Khadi & Village Industries Commission Regulations, 1958 and it also violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though prayer No.3 seeking a declaration that the distinction created by the first respondent among its employees as employees working in the regular establishment and the trading wing is _ultra vires_ the Khadi & Village Industries Commission Regulations, 1958 it is submitted by the learned counsel at the time of hearing that virtually, the employees working under the trading wing do not belong to the regular establishment. But, at the same time, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P.(CAT)No.212 of 2018 it is contended that classification between the said two groups got no nexus with the object sought to be achieved with the introduction of `1984 Pension Regulations.' 9. Thus, from the pleadings of the petitioners it is evident that the employees of trading wing do not belong to the regular O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 14 establishment. In fact, the said fact cannot be disputed in view of the indisputable position that in respect of the employees in the regular establishment the expenditure is being borne by the Government of India out of its budgetary resources, whereas in the case of trading establishment, created by the KVIC on its own without the prior approval of the Government of India, salary and other emoluments of the employees are being met from the trading margin earned by its trading units. It is also to be noted that Government of India is not providing any financial assistance for meeting non-plan expenditure like salary and allowances of the employees of the trading establishment. Bearing in mind this distinction we will have to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners that the classification of “employees working in regular establishment” and “employees of KVIC in the trading wing” is unreasonable and got no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. A scanning of the pleadings of the petitioners would reveal that in support of their challenge against Regulation No.2 they raised manifold contentions. Firstly, it is contended that personnel from trading wing of KVIC used to be transferred to the regular establishment. It is the further contention that except in the matter of granting benefits of `1984 Pension Regulations' employees of both the wings are treated similarly. The other contention is that KVIC itself O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 15 conducted a study after the judgment of the Delhi High Court and ultimately came to a conclusion that virtually, there exists no distinction between these two categories. But, at the same time, the fact is that even after conducting study and arriving at the conclusion that there exists no real distinction between employees working in the regular establishment and working in the trading wing (as alleged by the petitioners) the KVIC had not recommended for extension of the benefit of `1984 Pension Regulations' to the employees in the trading wing of KVIC. In such circumstances, whatever be the nature of the duties being performed by personnel in the regular establishment and the personnel in the trading wing, the fact is that personnel in the trading wing are not being regarded as employees belonging to the regular establishment of KVIC. It is in that context that the earlier aspects which we have taken note assume relevance. We have taken note of the fact that while KVIC was created under the Act the trading wing is the creation of KVIC without the approval of the Central Government. That apart, admittedly, the financial expenditure of the regular establishment of KVIC is being met by the budgetary allocation of the Central Government and the financial expenditure like salaries and emoluments of personnel belonging to the trading wing of KVIC are being met from the trading margin earned by the trading units and no O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 16 financial assistance is provided by the Central Government for the nonplan expenditure like salary and allowances of the employees in the trading establishment. As long as the said distinction is there merely because of the fact that personnel belonging to trading unit are used to be transferred to the regular establishment it could not be said that the classification is unreal and unreasonable. How can it be said when the regular establishment of KVIC is made pensionable the trading wing of KVIC which admittedly, does not belong to the regular establishment should also be made pensionable. It is to be noted that in the case of employees of trading wing EPF Scheme and certain other benefits are admittedly available. In other words, in the light of the aforesaid indisputable and undisputed fact we are of the view that the classification of employees of KVIC as employees of KVIC borne on the regular establishment and employees of the KVIC in the trading establishment cannot be said to be unreal and unreasonable. They actually belong to two classes. When a decision was taken to make the regular establishment of KVIC pensionable and a regular Pension Scheme was framed with a view to achieve the said purpose, it cannot be said that the decision not to extend the said benefit to employees in the trading establishment of KVIC would violate Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India in such circumstances. O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 17 10. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that there is no total embargo for classifying employees for the purpose of extending benefits, if the classification is real and reasonable and has nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. In such circumstances, it cannot be attacked on the ground of being arbitrary or discriminatory. It is evident that the Scheme in question was framed with a view to grant pension to personnel in the regular establishment of KVIC. In such circumstances, the employees of KVIC in the regular establishment virtually form a particular class and in that context, the employees of KVIC who do not belong to the regular establishment would form another class. When that distinction is real and reasonable, we do not find any reason to hold that the 1984 Pension Regulations, to the extent it excludes the employees of KVIC in the trading wing, is illegal or violates Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is not as if the employees in the trading wing are not provided with any such scheme. In their case, presently, what is available is EPF scheme. In other words, in the case of personnel in the trading wing of KVIC a scheme of contributory provident fund is there. The said scheme is in the nature of a substitute for pension and the Tribunal held so, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Committee for Protection of Rights of ONGC Employees and others** v. **ONGC** O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 18 **((1990) 2 SCC 472)** . Admittedly, employees of the trading wing of KVIC are beneficiaries of the contributory provident fund. In such circumstances, as a matter of right, they cannot demand for pension merely because employees of the trading wing of KVIC are granted certain other benefits at par with the employees belonging to the regular establishment. Certainly, it cannot be a reason to canvass that the trading wing of KVIC which is not part of the regular establishment should also be made pensionable. This certainly is a matter which should be decided by the KVIC at the first instance and subject of course, to the approval of the Central Government. In other words, if the said wing of the KVIC is also to be made pensionable the decision if at all taken in that regard by KVIC should get the approval of the Central Government. Till such time what is payable to employees belonging to the trading wing is the benefit flowing from the contributory provident fund. 11. The petitioner in O.P.(CAT)No.212 of 2018 got a further contention based on Annexure-A21. It is a Standing Order whereby pensionary benefits under the old pension scheme as per KVIC Employees Pension Regulations 1984 are made available to employees selected from trading establishment to the regular establishment on or after 1.1.2004. A perusal of the same would reveal that the said O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 19 Standing Order pertains to 60 KVIC employees selected from trading wing as a one time measure. The order itself would reveal that those 60 employees were selected from trading establishment to the regular establishment. On a careful scanning of the pleadings of the petitioner in O.P.(CAT)No.212 of 2018, in the original petition as also in the original application, we find no specific pleading to the effect that he was also selected from the trading establishment to the regular establishment, after following any prescribed procedure. True that, like certain other employees he was transferred. But, at the same time, he does not have a case that on his transfer he was regularly recruited or absorbed permanently into the regular establishment. In such circumstances, the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court which was relied on by the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. In other words, it is an undisputed fact that though he was sent to the regular establishment it can only be taken as a working arrangement as it was not followed by a permanent appointment or absorption, in the regular establishment. The petitioner therein got no such case. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to uphold the contention of the petitioner made based on Annexure-A21 or to deal with his case differently from the case of other employees retiring from the trading O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 20 wing of KVIC. He does not have a case that he was deprived of benefits available to the employees of the trading wing of KVIC, on retirement. In the above circumstances, we do not find any reason to hold that the Tribunal had gone wrong in repelling the challenge against Regulation No.2 of 1984 Pension Regulations. In other words, according to us, the decision of the Tribunal is not infected with any illegality or error in law warranting interference in exercise of the power of judicial review by this Court. In the said circumstances, both the original petitions must fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **V.G.ARUN Judge** TKS O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 21 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 94/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 24.10.2017 IN TA.NO.180/00003/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF TRANSFERRED APPLICATION (WPC 4837 OF 2011) EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE REPORT OF THE RESTRUCTURING COMMITTEE.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL FORWARDED FROM THE TRADE WING ALONG WITH LETTER FROM THE KVIC.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-8-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29-01-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11-8-2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 24-02-2009. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE HELD ON 01-06-2009.** O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 22 **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STANDING ORDER DATED 12-03-2012.** **ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED JULY 2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 23.06.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF REOLY FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN TA NO.3 OF 2016, DATED JANUARY, 2017.** **ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH INDEX DATED 15.06.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PRODUCING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A12034/14/2011KV1-II DATED 03-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.** **ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH INDEX DATED 27.06.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PRODUCING ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF KVIC.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE CADRE STRENGTH.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-082009 IN WA NO.530 OF 2008.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE KVIC MEETING DATED 30-07-2009.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LETTER DATED 30-06-2010.** O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 23 **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20-09-2004.** **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE KVIC.** TKS O.P.(CAT)Nos.94 & 212 of 2018 24 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 212/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 24-10-2017 IN O.A 775/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE CENTRAL A DMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF O.A 775/2016 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURE** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANNEXURES** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 12-3-2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9-11-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** TKS