State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram v. Ramesh P.G.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 1ST POUSHA, 1943 OP(KAT) NO. 374 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2016 IN OA NO.826/2016 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN O.A:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **RAMESH P.G S/O.GOPALA BAKTHAN, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 638 RESIDING AT PULIYILETHU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERY, PATTAHANAMTHITTA, KERALA - 689 641** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).195/2018, THE COURT ON 22.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 1ST POUSHA, 1943 OP(KAT) NO. 195 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.10.2017 IN O.A(EKM)NO.1564/2017 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN O.A:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, KERALA.** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN O.A:** **RAMESH.P.G AGED 50 YEARS LOWER DIVISION CLERK, TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689641, RESIDING AT PULIYILETHU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA-689641,MOB:9388055112.** **BY ADV SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).374/2017, THE COURT ON 22.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.** ## **=================================** ## **O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017** [ _arising out of the impugned final order dated 05.12.2016 in O.A No.826/2016 on the file of the KAT, Tvm. Bench_ ] & ## **O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018** [ _arising out of the impugned final order dated 05.10.2017 in O.A (Ekm)No.1564/2017 on the file of the KAT, Tvm Bench_ ] **=================================** Dated this the 22[nd] day of December, 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas, J.** As both the Original Petitions relate to the same issues involving the same official concerned and as the order passed by the respondents in the O.A in compliance with the directions in the verdict in the first O.A [O.A No.826/2016], had been challenged in the second O.A, these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. For the sake of easy reference, the annexures and documents as marked in O.P(KAT) No.195/2018 [arising out of the final order in O.A (Ekm.)No.1564/2017], will be referred to in this judgment unless otherwise indicated. The sole respondent herein in both these O.Ps is the original applicant in the two O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 4 O.As, will be referred for convenience as 'the original applicant'. 2. The original applicant is a differentially abled person. He had applied for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in Pathanamthitta District pursuant to the selection proceedings initiated by the District Collector for appointment as against 3% vacancies reserved for physically handicapped persons. One Smt.V.E.Khadija Beevi, who was selected and appointed in the category of orthopedically disabled persons in the above selection process, overlooking the claims of the original applicant. This resulted in the applicant challenging the rejection of his selection by instituting writ proceedings, W.P(C) No.28382/2007 before this Court. This Court as per Annexure-A1 judgment dated 20.10.2011, finally disposed of the said W.P(C) No.28382/2007 holding that the rejection of the selection of the applicant and the consequential selection of the said Smt.V.E.Khadija Beevi [R3 in the said W.P(C)], is illegal and _ultra vires_ and the various illegalities committed by the selection authorities in preferring Smt.V.E.Khadija Beevi, overlooking the superior merit of the applicant, has been found by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment and it was ultimately held therein that, the petitioner therein/original applicant O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 5 herein is a person entitled to be appointed in preference to R3 therein (Smt.V.E.Khadija Beevi) and hence, this Court directed as per Annexure-A1 judgment that, the applicant herein shall be appointed to the post of LD Clerk, pursuant to the above selection process in the place of R3 therein and appointment order shall be issued in favour of the original applicant, within two months and further, this Court also gave liberty to the State Government to consider exercising powers under Rule 39 of KS&SSR Part II, to retain R3 therein (Smt.V.E.Khadeeja Beevi). Hence, it can be seen that, this Court has held that the impugned rejection of the selection and appointment of the original applicant, was illegal and arbitrary and that, the applicant herein is the person entitled to be appointed in pursuance to R3 therein and that, he shall be appointed to the post of LD Clerk, within two months, etc. However, this Court has not quashed the selection and appointment of R3 therein and gave liberty to the State Government to consider the retention of R3 therein in service by exercising powers under Rule 39 of KS&SSR Part-II, etc. 3. However, the petitioner herein/respondent in the O.A did not comply with the directions of this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment and O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 6 hence, the applicant was constrained to initiate contempt of court proceedings as Cont.Case (C) No.285/2012 [arising out of W.P(C) No.28382/2007] before this Court. When the above contempt case was taken up for consideration by this Court on 04.04.2012, this Court noted that an order dated 07.03.2012 has been issued by the respondents therein appointing the applicant herein, this Court noted the contention of the applicant that, since this Court directed as per Annexure-A1 judgment that, the appointment of the applicant, should be in place of the 3[rd] respondent therein, the appointment should have been with effect from the date when R3 therein was appointed. This Court as per Annexure-A2 judgment dated 04.04.2012, closed contempt of court case C.O(C) No.285/2012 noting the abovesaid contention of the applicant as well as noting the submission of the respondents therein about issuance of appointment order dated 07.03.2012 in favour of the petitioner, held that, no specific direction has been issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment that, the applicant should be appointed from the date when R3 therein was appointed and that, liberty is granted to the applicant to raise any such claim to agitate the present issue appropriately, if he has any such claim and without prejudice O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 7 to the said right of the applicant, the above contempt of court case has thus closed. 4. The appointment order so issued in favour of the applicant on 03.03.2012 is Annexure-A3 [as produced in the latter O.A (Ekm) No.1564/2017 in the latter O.P(KAT) No.195/2018]. Being aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure-A3 appointment order dated 03.03.2012, to the limited extent it has not granted appointment to the applicant w.e.f the date on which R3 therein was appointed (30.12.2006). The applicant had filed O.A (Ekm) No.656/2015 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, which was disposed of as per Annexure-A5 final order dated 10.08.2015 directing the respondent therein to consider and pass orders on the representation preferred by the applicant, for getting the benefit of appointment from the date on which, the abovesaid R3 therein was appointed. Thereafter, the Government had passed Annexure-A8 order dated 02.03.2016, taking the view that, it was the original applicant who was appointed as LD Clerk in Pathanamthitta District by invoking power under Rule 39 of KS&SSR Part-II, as per Annexure-A3 order dated 03.03.2012 and that therefore, he was not entitled for benefits from any prior date and the said claim of the O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 8 applicant was thus rejected. The said rejection of the claim of the original applicant, was challenged by filing the instant O.A No.826/2017 before the Tribunal [which has given rise to the first instant O.P(KAT) No.374/2017]. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned final order dated 05.12.2016 in O.A No.826/2017 by holding that, the respondent therein has committed a gross illegality and it was the original applicant, who was in fact given the benefit of overall relaxation under Rule 39 of KS&SSR Part-II in the grant of Annexure-A3 appointment order dated 03.03.2012 and that a mere reading of Annexure-A1 judgment of this Court would make it clear that, this Court has categorically and conclusively held that, the rejection of the selection of the applicant in preference to R3 therein, was illegal and arbitrary for the detailed reasons stated therein and that the original applicant should be appointed to the post of LDC in Pathanamthitta district, in the place of R3 therein. Further that, the beneficiary of the Rule 39 power relaxation, was none other than R3 therein, in as much as, this Court as per Annexure-A1 judgment did not quash the appointment of R3 therein, though it was found to be illegal and had given liberty to the Government to consider the issue of retention of R3 O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 9 therein in service by invoking the power of relaxation under Rule 39 of KS&SSR Part-II. Hence, this Court held that the main ground of rejection stated by the respondent in the O.A in the rejection order as per Annexure-A8 dated 02.03.2016, is completely legally wrong and based on irrelevant considerations and that, accordingly, the Tribunal as per the final order dated 05.12.2016, has disposed O.A No.826/2016 with the abovesaid specific findings and has thus quashed Annexure-A8 rejection order, with the specific declaration that, it was none other than Smt.Khadeeja Beevi, who was granted the benefit of Rule 39 of KS&SSR Part-II and that, the applicant was legally entitled to be appointed against the vacancy in which Smt.Khadeeja Beevi was appointed with effect from the date on which he was appointed and that, the applicant would be entitled for all consequential benefits, etc. The said verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 05.12.2016 in O.A No.826/2016, has been challenged by the State by filing O.P(KAT) No.374/2017 on 05.10.2017. However, it appears that before filing O.P(KAT) No.374/2017 before this Court on 05.10.2017, the State authorities have passed yet another order dated 17.06.2017 [produced as Annexure-A10 in O.P(KAT) No.195/2018], whereby the fresh orders have O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 10 again been passed, in purported compliance of the directions and findings of the Tribunal as per the final order dated 05.12.2016 in O.A No.826/2016 again rejecting the claim of the original applicant for appointment from the date on which Smt.Khadeeja Beevi was appointed, by stating different grounds. A reading of the impugned Annexure-A10 order dated 17.06.2017 issued by the State Government would make it clear that, the original applicant was in fact appointed only as per Annexure-A3 appointment order dated 03.03.2012 and he had joined duty only on 18.03.2012; whereas Smt.Khadeeja Beevi was initially appointed on 30.12.2006 and that, the applicant has never performed her duties and responsibilities attached to the abovesaid LDC, for the period from 30.12.2006, the date of appointment of Smt.Khadeeja Beevi, which date is claimed by the original applicant, up to 18.03.2012, the date on which the date on which the applicant had joined duty in the post of LD Clerk and that, the seniority of the applicant stands re-assigned above that of Smt.Khadeeja Beevi and that, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 23(c) of Part-I KSR, the applicant would be entitled to pay and allowances only from when he has joined duty on 19.03.2012. O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 11 5. The said subsequent rejection order as per Annexure-A10 dated 17.06.2017, has been challenged by the applicant by filing O.A (Ekm) No.1564/2017 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned final order dated 05.10.2017 in O.A(Ekm) No.1564/2017 holding that, in view of the concluded findings of this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment as well as the other aspects, the applicant is entitled to be appointed in the place of Smt.Khadeeja Beevi and that, the contentions of the State, by placing reliance on Rule 23(c) of Part-I KSR, are only technical contentions just to deny the rightful benefits to the applicant and that, Rule 23(c) of Part-I KSR will not apply in the facts of this case. Further that, the contentions raised by the State regarding principles of constructive _res-judicata_ , etc., will not apply in the instant case, more so particularly in view of Annexure-A2 judgment of this Court in C.O(C) No.285/2012. Accordingly, as found that the subsequent rejection of the claim of the petitioner as per Annexure-A10 order dated 17.06.2017, is illegal and _ultra vires_ and has thus quashed the said rejection order dated 17.06.2017 at Annexure-A10 and has directed the State to regularize the appointment of the applicant w.e.f 30.12.2006, the date on which 12 O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 Smt.Khadeeja Beevi was appointed as LDC and granted him all consequential benefits till the date of his actual appointment on 19.03.2012, etc. The abovesaid subsequent verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 05.10.2017 in O.A (Ekm) No.1564/2017, has been separately challenged in O.P(KAT)No.195/2018, which is filed on 23.05.2018. As mentioned hereinabove, the previous verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 05.12.2016 in O.A No.826/2016 has been challenged in O.P(KAT)No.374/2017 filed by the State on 05.10.2017. The prayers in O.P(KAT) No.374/2017 are as follows : _“............ to set aside Ext.P2 order dated 05.12.2016 in O.A.826/2016 on the file of the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench by allowing this Original Petition.”_ 6. The prayers in O.P(KAT) No.195/2018 are as follows : _“...........to call for records leading to Ext.P2 Order dated 05.10.2017 in O.A.(EKM)No.1564/2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench and to set aside the same thereby dismissing the above Original Application.”_ 7. Heard Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in these two cases and Sri.James Abraham (Vilayakattu), learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/original applicant therein). O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 13 8. A reading of the pleadings and materials on record, would make it clear that, this Court has categorically and unequivocally held as per Annexure-A1 judgment dated 20.10.2011 in W.P(C) No.28382/2007 filed by the applicant herein that, the rejection of the selection of the applicant in preference to R3 therein, was grossly illegal and arbitrary and overlooking superior and better merits of the applicant herein and this Court has categorically held therein that, it is the applicant, who is entitled to be appointed to the post of LDC in Pathanamthitta District in preference to R3 therein and that, appointment order should be granted by the State in favour of the original applicant, in the place of R3 therein, within two months. However, though this Court has conclusively held that the selection of R3 therein was illegal, this Court did not quash the appointment of R3 therein, presumably on the ground that, the appointment was in the physically disabled quota and this Court directed that, the State Government will be at liberty to consider the retention of R3 therein, in service by resorting to power of relaxation in terms of Rule 39 of KS&SSR Part-II. 9. Further, when Annexure-A1 judgment was not complied with, O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 14 the original applicant was compelled to approach this Court by filing contempt of court case C.O(C) No.285/2012 [arising out of W.P(C) No.28382/2007] and in the meanwhile, the State Government had issued Annexure-A3 appointment order dated 03.03.2012 in favour of the original applicant. This Court while dealing with the said contempt petition, also noted the specific contention of the petitioner that, he should have been appointed from the date on which R3 in the W.P(C) was appointed (30.12.2006) and held that, no specific direction was issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment, but has given specific liberty to the applicant that, in case he has any such claim, it is for him to agitate the said issue separately in appropriate proceedings, etc. Accordingly, the applicant had preferred a representation before the State Government claiming that, the appointment order dated 07.03.2012 should be modified, so as to give him appointment w.e.f 30.12.2006, the date on which Smt.Khadeeja Beevi was appointed, etc. The said contention of the applicant has been rejected by the State Government by passing Annexure-A8 order dated 02.03.2006, stating that, the said claim of the applicant cannot be granted on the ground that the applicant, who is beneficiary of power relaxation as per 15 O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 Rule 39, etc. The said rejection order as per Annexure-A8 dated 02.03.2006 has been challenged by the applicant by filing O.A No.826/2016, the Tribunal has rendered final order dated 05.12.2016 in O.A No.826/2016 holding that, the main ground of rejection as per Annexure-A8 dated 02.03.2016, is completely illegal and irrelevant, the exact reverse situation is the real fact and truth of the matter, in as much as it was none other than R3 therein, who was the beneficiary of Rule 39 relaxation and the applicant was found to be legally entitled for appointment in the place of R3 therein. Hence, the Tribunal has quashed the first rejection order as per Annexure-A8 dated 02.03.2006 and has directed the State Government to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the applicant. The said verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 05.12.2016 in O.A No.826/2016 has been separately challenged by the State by filing O.P(KAT) No.374/2017, belatedly on 05.10.2017. Before that, the State in purported compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal as per final order dated 05.12.2016 in O.A No.826/2016, has again passed a rejection order as per Annexure-A10 dated 17.06.2017, whereby the claim of the applicant has been again rejected by citing different grounds. This has been O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 16 challenged by the original applicant by filing the instant O.A (Ekm) No.1564/2017, which has been allowed by the Tribunal on 05.10.2017, rejecting all the contentions of the State and holding that, he is entitled for all consequential benefits for appointment from 03.12.2006, as has been given in the case of Smt.Khadeeja Beevi and give him more consequential benefits in that regard, etc. The said verdict of the Tribunal rendered on 05.10.2017 in O.A (Ekm) No.1564/2017, has been separately challenged by the State by filing O.P(KAT) Nos.195/2018 before this Court on 23.05.2018. Hence, primarily two contentions have been raised in these cases. 10. The first contention is based on _res judicata_ or constructive _res judicata_ . The contention raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein is that, there is no specific direction or finding made by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment dated 20.10.2011 in W.P(C) No.28382/2007 that, the petitioner should in fact be given appointment order, from the date on which appointment has been given in favour of R3 therein (30.12.2006) and that, this aspect of the matter has also been found so by this Court in Annexure-A2 judgment dated 04.04.2012 in C.O(C) No.285/2012. Hence, it is urged that the O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 17 present claim of the petitioner is barred by principles of _res judicata_ and/or constructive _res judicata_ , in as much as the said specific relief has never been granted by the petitioner while rendering Annexure-A1 judgment and the same cannot be re-agitated in subsequent proceedings as above. The said contention of the State based on _res judicata_ /constructive _res judicata_ is to be rejected on the simple ground that this Court has already categorically declared in Annexure-A2 judgment dated 04.04.2012 in C.O(C) No.285/2012 [arising out of W.P(C) No.28382/2007] that, though it may be true that there is no specific direction or order issued by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment that, appointment order should be given in favour of the original applicant from the date on which R3 therein was given appointment on 30.12.2006, it has been made clear by this Court in Annexure-A2 judgment that in case, the petitioner has any such claim, it is for the petitioner to agitate it appropriately. This Court also noted the fact that the respondent therein had issued Annexure-A4 dated 07.03.2012 appointing the petitioner as LDC in Pathanamthitta district and that, he had joined duty on 19.03.2012, etc. So, it is only to be held that, even if the specific prayer of the applicant for grant of appointment order from the O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 18 date on which R3 therein was appointed on 30.12.2006, has not been granted by this Court as per Annexure-A1 judgment. This Court has subsequently given liberty to the applicant, as per Annexure-A2 judgment dated 04.04.2012 to raise such claim appropriately and to agitate the same, in the manner known to law. Hence, the said plea of _res judicata_ /constructive _res judicata_ , will not apply in the facts of this case, more so particularly, in the light of Annexure-A2 judgment rendered by this Court. Further, this Court has already declared in Annexure-A1 judgment dated 20.10.2011 in W.P(C) No.28382/2007 that, the petitioner is legally entitled to be appointed in preference to R3 therein and that, he shall be appointed in the place of R3, within two months, etc. In the light of these aspects, we are constrained to reject the said first contention raised by the State and we would fully concur with the considered views of the Tribunal that, the principles of _res judicata_ or constructive _res judicata_ , will not in any manner bar the claim of the applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Before dealing with the second contention advanced by the State, it may be pertinent to refer to some of the basic factual aspects in this O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 19 case. We requested both sides to get factual instructions as to the respective dates of appointments of the applicant herein as well as Smt.Khadeeja Beevi, to the post LD Clerk and the dates of completion of probation of those incumbents in the post of LDC and the date of subsequent promotion granted to them to the next higher category post, if any, etc. We are now apprised by both sides that Smt.V.E.Khadeeja Beevi was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk overlooking the superior claim of the applicant on 30.12.2006 and her probation in the post of LDC was declared on 14.01.2011. Further that, she was subsequently promoted to the next higher category post of Senior Clerk on 14.02.2014 and that, she is continuing in service in that capacity. Further that, the original applicant herein was appointed as LDC as per Annexure-A3 order dated 03.03.2012 and he had joined duty as LDC on 19.03.2012 and his probation was declared in the post of LDC on 18.03.2014 and that he has not secured promotion to the post of Senior Clerk, etc. Further that, the original applicant is to retire from service consequent to the attainment of superannuation on 31.05.2022. O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 20 ## 12. Rule 23(a) of Part-I KSR reads as follows : _“_ _**23.(a)** Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules, an Officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. If the charge is transferred afternoon, the transfer does not affect pay and allowances until the next day._ _[_ _**Exception** .- An Officer deputed for a course of instruction or training which is ordered to be treated as duty, if promoted to a higher post in the regular line during such course of instruction or training, may draw the pay thereof, without joining it, the benefit of promotion being given from the date his junior assumes charge of the higher post.]_ 13. A reading of Rule 23(a) of Part-I KSR would make it clear that, subject to any exception subsequently made in those Rules (Kerala Service Rules), an officer shall begin to draw his pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date he assumes the duties of that post and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties, etc. Rule 23(c) of Part-I KSR provide as follows : _“Rule 23(c) In the case of notional promotions back arrears of pay and allowances are not admissible”_ 14. The learned Senior Government Pleader has invited our attention to the provisions contained in Rule 33 of Part-I KSR, envisages the provisions which prescribe the conditions on which service counts for increments in the time scale and clause (a) of Rule 33 _inter alia_ prescribes that, all duty in a post on a time-scale, counts for increments in that time-scale. The O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 21 learned Senior Government Pleader has also invited our attention to the definition of 'duty', as contained in Rule 12(7) of KSR Part-I and clause(1) of Rule 12(7) of Part-I KSR defines 'duty' to include service as a probationer provided that, such service is followed by confirmation, etc. 15. In the instant case, it is common ground that the State authorities have illegally appointed Smt.V.E.Khadeeja Beevi on 30.12.2006 to the post of LDC, rejecting the better and superior claims and merits of the original applicant. The fact of the matter is that Smt.Khadeeja Beevi was thus appointed as LDC w.e.f 30.12.2006. This Court as per Annexure-A1 judgment would have quashed the selection and appointment of the said incumbent, Smt.Khadeeja Beevi, this Court taking a sympathetic view, held that, it will be open to the State to invoke its discretionary relaxation of powers under Rule 39 of Part-II KS&SSR to consider the retention of service of R3 therein (Khadeeja Beevi), etc. However, this Court has unequivocally declared therein that, the original applicant was legally entitled to be appointed as LDC, in the place of R3 therein and appointment order should be issued in favour of the original applicant, in the place of R3 therein, etc. Consequent thereto, the original applicant was given appointment order as per Annexure-A3 dated 03.03.2012 and he had joined duty as LDC on 19.03.2012. In view of the order passed by the O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 22 Government to retain the continuance of service of Smt.Khadeeja Beevi by resort to Rule 39 of Part-II KS&SSR, she has been allowed to continue in service and her probation in the post of LDC, is seen to have been declared on 14.01.2011. Whereas, the original applicant has joined duty as LDC on 19.03.2012 in pursuance of Annexure-A3 appointment order dated 03.03.2012 and her probation in the post of LDC was declared on 18.03.2014. It is common ground that the applicant herein has not discharged the duties and responsibilities in the post of LDC for the period from 30.12.2006, the date on which Smt.Khadeeja Beevi was appointed as LDC upto 19.03.2012, the date on which the original applicant had joined duty as LDC. True that, the selection and appointment of Smt.Khadeeja Beevi w.e.f 30.12.2006 overlooking superior claim and merit of the applicant, was illegal and arbitrary. However, the fact of the matter is that, the original applicant has not discharged duties and functions in the post of LDC for the long period from 30.12.2006 upto 19.03.2012. Without performing duties and functions of the post and without successful completion of the declaration of probation of the original applicant, it may not be right and proper for the Tribunal to have directed that, all pay and O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 23 allowances including consequential monetary benefits should necessarily be given to the applicant for the period from 30.12.2006 upto 19.03.2012. The claim of the applicant that, pay and allowances, increment, etc. will be regulated by the provisions contained in Rules 23(a), 23(c) of Part-I KSR as well as other provisions in Rule 33 of Part-I KSR read with Rule 12 (7) of Part-I KSR, etc. Hence, we are of the view that inspite of the gross illegality committed by the State, it was not right and proper for the Tribunal, to have directed that the full pay and allowances should be given to the applicant for the period from 30.12.2006 upto 19.03.2012 and all other consequential benefits falling therefrom, etc. Hence, the said directions issued by the Tribunal will require some modifications. 16. However, indisputable fact of the matter is that, the applicant is the victim of gross illegality and injustice committed by the State authorities, as has been conclusively found by this Court in Annexures-A1 & A2 judgments. This Court has conclusively held in Annexure-A1 judgment that, the rejection of the selection of the original applicant in preference to R3 therein, is highly illegal and arbitrary and overlooking better and superior merits and claims of the original applicant and that, the original O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 24 applicant is legally entitled to be appointed in the place of R3 therein and that, the appointment order should be issued in favour of the original applicant, in the place of R3 therein, within two months, etc. The said findings and observations made by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment and further liberty given to the applicant by this Court as per Annexure-A2 judgment has become final and conclusive. Therefore, merely because the applicant has not physically discharged duties and functions in the post of LDC w.e.f 30.12.2006 upto 19.03.2012, cannot be said to be the end of the road as far as the applicant's quest for justice is concerned. It is not as if the Judicial Fora like the Tribunal and this Court exercising powers of judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, are powerless to deal with the situations as in the instant case, in an appropriate, just and fair manner. We are of the strong view that though the applicant may not be entitled for counting the abovesaid period from 30.12.2006 to 19.03.2012, as period entitled to him for full pay and allowances and all consequential monetary benefits, etc. The said period will have to which certainly treated for notional purposes and for all notional benefits, till his successful declaration of probation in the post of O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 25 LDC on 18.03.2014, More so particularly, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in decisions as in _**Union of India & Ors.** v._ _**K.B.Rajoria**_ [(2000) 3 SCC 562], _**K.K.Sharma v. High Court of Delhi & Ors.**_ [(2014) 16 SCC 96], etc. 17. In _**K.B.Rajoria's case**_ supra [(2000) 3 SCC 562], the Apex Court has dealt with a case of promotion to the post of Director General (Works) of the Central Public Works Department under the Union Government and the matter was in relation to the promotion to the post of Director General (works), which is a selection post to be filled up by promotion from amongst, inter alia, “Additional Director General (Works) with two years' regular service in the grade”. One Krishnamoorti had been granted notional promotion to the post of Addl. Director General on 10.6.1998 w.e.f. 22.2.1995 and his name was considered for the post of Director General, when the DPC met in January, 1999. Whereas one K.B.Rajoria (R-1) in the abovesaid Civil Appeal considered by the Apex Court, had filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) claiming that he was also eligible to be considered for the post of Director General. The Tribunal dismissed K.B.Rajoria's application on O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 26 12.5.1999, which in turn was challenged before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that neither R-1 (Rajoria) nor the aforementioned Krishnamoorti was eligible on the cut-off date of 1.7.1997 for promotion to the post of Director General and according to the High Court, the words “regular service” in the Rules meant actual service and fiction of notional promotion could not amount to the two years' experience necessary under the rules. The Delhi High Court has taken the view that the notional seniority granted to .Krishnamoorti by order dated 10.6.1998 was no substitute for the requirement of two years' regular service as Addl. Director General (Works). The Apex Court in para 10 of the _**K.B.Rajoria's case**_ supra, referred to the meaning of the word, “regular” in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is as follows: **“10.** Finally, while considering the definition of the word “regular” in the _Concise Oxford Dictionary_ , 9th Edn., the High Court noted that it meant: “( _1_ ) conforming to a rule or principle; systematic. ( _2_ ) harmonious, symmetrical. ( _3_ ) acting or done or recurring uniformly or calculably in time or manner; habitual, constant, orderly. ( _4_ ) conforming to a standard of etiquette or procedure; correct; according to convention. ( _5_ ) properly constituted or qualified; not defective or amateur; pursuing an occupation as one's main pursuit.” 18. In para 11 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held that the word, “regular” therefore, does not mean actual and first question the High Court should have considered is whether the appointment of Krishnamoorti was regular O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 27 and in accordance with rules or it was irregular in the sense that is contrary to any principle of law. In para 12 thereof the Apex Court also referred to an earlier decision in _**K.Madhavan v. UOI**_ [(1987) 4 SCC 566], where the eligibility requirement was eight years in the grade “on a regular basis” and it was held in para 10 of K.Madhavan's case supra that their Lordships of the Supreme Court are of the view that the expression, “on a regular basis” would mean the appointment to the post on a regular basis in contradistinction to appointment on ad hoc or stop gap or purely temporary basis. Thereafter in para 13 in _**K.B.Rajoria's case**_ supra the Apex Court has held that it is nobody's case that the notional promotion granted to Krishnamoorti was irregular and noted that by giving him notional promotion as Addl. Director General w.e.f. 22.2.1995, Krishnamoorti was in fact regularly appointed to the post on that date, etc. 19. In para 21 of _**K.B.Rajoria's case**_ supra, the Apex Court has held that the notional promotion given to Krishnamoorti to right the wrong that had been done to him by his supersession on 22.2.1995 and that if Krishnamoorti is denied the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director General on the basis of such notional promotion, particularly when the relevant provisions so provide, it would result in perpetuating the wrong done to him and that therefore the impugned judgment of the High Court is not O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 28 sustainable, etc. It will be profitable to refer to para 21 of _**K.B.Rajoria's**_ ## _**case**_ supra, which reads as follows: _**“21.** The notional promotion was given to Krishnamoorti to right the wrong that had been done to him by his supersession on 22-2-1995. If Krishnamoorti is denied the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director General on the basis of such notional promotion, particularly when the relevant provisions so provide, it would result in perpetuating the wrong done to him. That is exactly what the High Court has done.”_ 20. The abovesaid dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**K.B.Rajoria's case**_ supra [(2000) 3 SCC 562] has been reaffirmed and relied by the Apex Court in a subsequent judgment in the case in _**K.K.Sharma v. High Court of Delhi & Ors.**_ [(2014) 16 SCC 96], as can be seen from para 16 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: _**“16.** At what stage the reversal of the process that had been erroneously undertaken and the corrections initiated should end? It is implicit in the order dated 23-10-2009 [Atul Kumar Sharma v. High Court of Delhi, WP (C) No. 4077 of 2004, order dated 23-10-2009 (Del)] (para 45) that the review should be undertaken at each step/stage undergone by those who were wrongly/mistakenly promoted. The limited review directed in the cadre of AOJ/CM has to be continued in all higher cadres to which promotions may have been made on the basis of the initial promotion to the cadre of AOJ/CM. Any other view would be inconsistent with the view expressed in Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria [Union of India v. K.B. Rajoria, (2000) 3 SCC 562 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 665] , with which we are in respectful agreement: (SCC p. 567, para 21)_ _“21. The notional promotion was given to Krishnamoorti to right the wrong that had been done to him by his supersession on 22-2-1995. If Krishnamoorti is denied the right to be considered for promotion to the post of Director General on the basis of such notional promotion, particularly when the relevant provisions so provide, it would result in perpetuating the wrong done to him. That is exactly what the High Court has done.”_ 29 O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 21. In the case in _**UOI v. Sadhana Khanna**_ [(2008) 1 SCC 720] the Apex Court has dealt with a case that the name of the respondent therein had not been included in the select list, although he was qualified to be included in the select list and officers juniors to him, who had secured lower rank in the examination for selection to the feeder category post in question, were included in the select list of Section Officers, lower in rank in the selection examination for the feeder category post of Assistant Grade, were included in the select list for Section Officers and that her appointment was thus delayed and it was held that the Department was to be blamed for the delay in sending the letter offering appointment to her in the feeder category post and that since juniors to her have already been included in the select list for the promotion to the post of Section Officer, the respondent therein had also the right to be considered for the same treatment as otherwise, it will lead to the junior being considered for promotion, while denying the same benefit admitted to the senior, etc. In the case in _**Pilla Sitaram Patrude & Ors. v. UOI**_ [(1996) 8 SCC 637] also appears to be a case, wherein the appointment of the successful party concerned was found to be delayed for no fault of his and therefore, it was O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 30 held that he was entitled to ranking given in the select list and appointment made accordingly. 22. Reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Sucheendran.M.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors.**_ [2005 (3) KLT 499 = 2005 KHC 926] may also be made, since the Division Bench has considered the issue relating to notional promotion with retrospective effect and the applicability of no work, no pay, etc. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Sucheendran.M.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors.**_ [2005 (3) KLT 499 = 2005 KHC 926] has dealt with the issue regarding the aspects of notional promotion with retrospective effect and the applicability of no work, no pay. The said case has dealt with appointments to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II and Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I and those posts do not involve any change of duties and responsibilities. It will be pertinent to refer to para No.2 of the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Sucheendran.M.K's case**_ supra [2005 (3) KLT 499 = 2005 KHC 926], which reads as follows: > _'2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Bhaskaran Pillai, 2003 (1) KLT 60, in which it was held that the decision in Philomina v. State of Kerala, 1984 KLT 59, was not good law. We are of the opinion that whether one will get backwages consequent to promotion depends upon the facts of each case. It is true that normally when retrospective_ O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 31 _promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been illegally denied promotion earlier as held by the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, (1999) 4 SCC 181. Retrospective promotion and appointment retrospectively for notional purpose are different. In this connection, we also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010. There are also various decisions of the Supreme Court where direction was only to give notional benefits without giving salary on the ground of "no work no pay" (See State of Haryana v. O.P.Gupta, (1996) 7 SCC 533, Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, (1989) 2 SCC 541, Virender Kumar, G.M., N.Rlys. v. Avinash Chandra Chadha, (1990) 3 SCC 472. All depend upon the facts of each case. Here, the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the period of retrospective notional appointment on the ground of 'no work no pay'. Difference in salary for the retrospectively promoted post cannot be denied on the ground of "no work no pay" because there is no difference in work of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II and Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade I. The petitioner was doing the same work. There is no question of 'no work' in the promoted post. The matter is covered by the Service Rules. R.23(c) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules reads as follows:_ _"23. (c) Promotions which do not involve a change of duties shall have effect from the date of the vacancy which occasions the promotion"._ _Therefore, there is a clear provision in the Service Rules that promotions which do not involve a change of duties should be given effect from the date on which the vacancy arose. Here there is no change of duties. It is only promotional aspect with a change of salary alone and for no fault of the petitioner, he was denied promotion at the particular date. Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled to the difference in salary in the promoted post for the period from 19.9.1989 till 11.7.1995 from which date he was retrospectively promoted. The arrears of the same should be paid to him within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.'_ 23. Further, as mentioned herein, the Apex Court has held in the decision in _**K.Madhavan** v._ _**Union of India**_ [(1987) 4 SCC 566] that, where the eligibility requirement of eight years in a grade on regular basis. The said expression 'on a regular basis' would be that, appointment in the post should be on a regular basis in contradistinction to appointment on an ad hoc or stopgap or purely temporary basis. In _**K.Madhavan's case**_ O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 32 supra, it was found that the regular appointment was illegally denied to the petitioners therein and therefore, the period from the date on which the incumbent was otherwise regularly entitled for such appointment, should be treated as notional service and the said notional service, can only be treated as regular service, in as much as it was on the basis of the legal entitlement of the party concerned and it cannot be said to be an ad hoc or temporary basis appointment and hence, the said notional period of service should be counted as part of the eligibility requirement of eight years in the grade on regular basis for the next promotion, etc. In the light of these aspects, though we are of the view that the Tribunal may not be fully right in directing that the abovesaid period of service from 30.12.2006 upto 19.03.2012, should be treated for the purpose of full pay and allowances and all consequential monetary benefits, etc. the said period should be treated as notional service of the petitioner. We also take note of the recent judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case _**C.Jayachandran** v._ _**State of Kerala & ors.**_ [(2020) 5 SCC 230], wherein it has been held that, in a case where regular selection and appointment has been illegally denied to the party therein, then the ranking in the select list should be O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 33 revised accordingly and the said period should be treated for the purpose of all notional benefits, etc. Hence, the following directions and orders are passed: The abovesaid period from 30.12.2006 upto 19.03.2012 should be counted as notional service of the applicant, for the purpose of seniority, pay fixation benefits, etc. and the said period should be counted for the purpose of the next promotion of the petitioner as Senior Clerk, etc. In that regard, it is noted that Smt.Khadeeja Beevi was appointed as LDC on 30.12.2006 and her probation was declared on 14.01.2011 and she was promoted to the next higher category post of Senior Clerk on 14.02.2014. It is also common ground that the State Government themselves have ordered that the original applicant should be treated as senior to Smt.Khadeeja Beevi. Further, the abovesaid period from 30.12.2006 upto 19.03.2012, should be counted for notional seniority and other benefits and the pay of the applicant as on 18.03.2014 (date of declaration of probation in the post of LDC), should be re-fixed by counting the abovesaid notional period from 30.12.2006 onwards. No actual arrears of pay and allowances may be given to the applicant for the period upto 18.03.2014 (date of declaration of O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 34 probation in the post of LDC). Further, since Smt.Khadeeja Beevi has been promoted as Senior Clerk on 14.02.2014 and since the applicant has successfully completed his probation in the post of LDC on 18.03.2014 and as, the applicant has already been placed as senior above Smt.Khadeeja Beevi and as there are no change of duties and responsibilities in the post of LDC _vis-a-vis_ the higher category post of Senior Clerk/UDC, etc. the competent authority of the petitioner will also pass orders promoting the applicant as Senior Clerk w.e.f 19.03.2014. The pay and allowances of the applicant as Senior Clerk w.e.f 19.03.2014, should also be re-fixed in the above manner by counting the above notional period from 30.12.2006 as above and all actual arrears of pay and allowances to the applicant for the period from 19.03.2014 onwards in the post of Senior Clerk, should be given to the applicant. The pay of the applicant as on the date of his proposed retirement on 31.05.2022, should be correctly re-fixed on the above basis and the pensionary of the applicant including pension, DCRG, etc., should be sanctioned and disbursed to him, by correctly reckoning his last pay as on the date of his retirement as above. However, we note that the State Government alone is a party in these proceedings and to obviate O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 35 any further delay, it is ordered that the abovesaid directions shall be complied with by the competent authority concerned like the Commissioner for Land Revenue or the District Collector concerned and pay of the applicant as on 19.03.2014 i.e. the day after the successful completion of probation in the post of LDC, should be re-fixed by counting the abovesaid period from 30.12.2006 as above and promotion should also be granted to the applicant as Senior Clerk from 19.03.2014 onwards and all actual arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 19.03.2014, shall be paid to the applicant within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. So also, the last pay of the applicant as on his proposed date of retirement on 31.05.2022, should also be re-fixed correctly on the above basis by counting the period from 30.12.2006 onwards, so that, his retirement benefits by way of pension, gratuity, etc. are also reckoned correctly on the basis of such re-fixed last pay. The State and the departmental authorities concerned should realize the gravity of the illegality committed by them and the injustice thus suffered by the applicant and there shall not be any further delay in the matter to comply with the abovesaid directions. The directions and orders of the Tribunal as O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 36 per the verdicts in O.A No.826/2016 & O.A (Ekm) No.1564/2017, will stand modified to the limited extent as above. 24. The Secretary to the office of the Advocate General will immediately follow copies of this judgment to the competent authority of the State Government in the Revenue Department as well as to the Commissioner of Revenue and the District Collector, Pathanamthitta, for necessary information and immediate compliance. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petitions, will stand finally disposed of. **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** vgd 37 O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 374/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2011**| |---|---| ||**IN W.P. NO. 28382/2007.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.4.2012 IN**| ||**CONT. CASE (C) NO. 285/2012.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.**| ||**95/2012/RD DATED 3.3.2012.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. S3/07/2006 DATED**| ||**7.3.2012 WAS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT**| ||**COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED**| ||**07.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE P.S.C.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO. S4-**| ||**41438/14/3 DATED 6.12.2014 OF DISTRICT**| ||**COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2015 IN**| ||**O.A. (EKM) NO. 656/2015 OF THE TRIBUNAL.**| |**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 1916/2016/RD**| ||**DATED 2.3.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.A.NO. 826/2016 ALONG**| ||**WITH ITS ANNEXURES**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/12/2016 IN**| ||**OA NO. 826/2016**| O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 38 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 195/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OA ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-10-2017 IN O.A.(EKM)NO.1564/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 06-102017 IN OP(KAT)NO.374/2017.** **ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2011 IN W.P(C) NO.28382/2007 ANNEXURE-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2012 IN CONT.CASE(C) NO.285/2012 ANNEXURE-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(MS)NO.95/2012/RD DATED 03.03.2012 ANNEXURE-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S3/07/2006 DATED 07.03.2012 WAS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA ANNEXURE-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 07.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ANNEXURE-A6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.S441438/14/3 DATED 06.12.2014 OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA ANNEXURE-A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2015 IN O.A(EKM) NO.656/2016. ANNEXURE-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.1916/2016/RD DATED 02.03.2016** 39 O.P (KAT) No.374 of 2017 & O.P (KAT) No.195 of 2018 **ANNEXURE-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2016 IN O.A NO.826/2016 ANNEXURE-A10 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.2717/2017/RD DATED 17.06.2017 ANNEXURE-A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.02.2017.**