Union of India v. Jacob Thomas P. and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z)** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.52/2009 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY**| |---|---| ||**M/O. HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,**| ||**(DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION & LITERACY),**| ||**B-WING, GROUND FLOOR, SASTHRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.**| |**2**|**THE SECRETARY**| ||**MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL**| ||**PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, NEW DELHI.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, CGC**| ||**SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**JACOB THOMAS P.**| |---|---| ||**LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY**| ||**MAHATMA GANDHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, ANDROTH,**| ||**UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT PARAYIL HOUSE,**| ||**KUZHIMATTOM, KOTTAYAM.**| |**2**|**GEORGE A.O., LECTURER IN COMMERCE**| ||**MAHATMA GANDHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, ANDROTH, UTO**| ||**LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT AINIADAM HOUSE, CHENGAL,**| ||**KALADY, ERNAKULAM.**| |**3**|**P.I.MUHAMMED IQBAL, LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY**| ||**MAHATMA GANDHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, ANDROTH,**| ||**UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT PUTHIYA ILLAM,**| ||**KALPENI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.**| OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 2 - **4 DR. JOHNY THOMAS LECTURER IN BOTANY MAHATMA GANDHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, ANDROTH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT UPPANIYIL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM.** - **5 SAJU THOMAS, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS MAHATMA GANDHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, ANDROTH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT ANANTHUNTHY HOUSE, PUTHIYA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA.** - **6 P.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, LECTURER IN HINDI MAHATMA GANDHI SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, ANDROTH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP,RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, POYYUR ROAD, MAYYIL, KANNUR.** - **7 ASARPAL SINGH, LECTURER IN HISTORY JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT GANDIALKAGOITHRE,, AAUMAGU, MINICOY, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.** - **8 G.K.MOHAMMED, LECTURER IN ECONOMICS JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT GANDIALKAGOITHRE, AAUMAGU, MINICOY, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.** - **9 RAVINDRANATHAN.E., LECTURER IN ECONOMICS JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT MELADATHU HOUSE, THIRUVAZHIYODE, PALAKKAD.** - **10 C.RAJENDRAN, LECTURER IN MATHEMATICS JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT PUDUREDDIYUR, KADTHUR, DHARMAPURI, TAMILNADU.** - **11 M.C.MOHAMMED, LECTURER IN HINDI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT MANNETHACHETTA HOUSE, AMINI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.** - **12 KHALELULLA POLAKKADOM, LECTURER IN ZOOLOGY, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT POLAKKADOM HOUSE, AMINI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 3 - **13 P.S.ATTAKOYA, LECTURER IN ENGLISH JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT PUTHIYA SURAMBI, AMINI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.** - **14 TOM MATHEW.T., LECTURER IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT THENGAMPALLIL, CHUNGAPPARA.** - **15 JACOBE VARKEY, LECTURER IN COMMERCE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT VENKATTACKAL HOUSE, ATHIYODI, KOZHIKODE.** - **16 S.MOHAMME SHEK DAVOOR SATCHA, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT GO-A, SOFEET ROAD, RAHMATH NAGAR EAST, THIRUNELVALI, TAMIL NADU.** - **17 SHIVADHAR TIWARY, RETIRED LECTURER IN BOTANY, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT SHIVAKRISHNA MANSION, GAS AGENCY ROAD, PAKARI, ARRAH, BIHAR.** - **ADDL. 18 THE ADMINISTRATOR, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHY.** - **ADDL. 19 ADDL. R19. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KAVARATHY.** - **(ADDITIONAL R18 AND R19 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/08/2011 IN IA NO.13505/11)** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN R1-17 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAN** **R18-19 BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP** - **R18-19 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC, LAKSHADWEEP ADMN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).2520/2011(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **OP (CAT).No.2520 OF 2011** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.655/2009 DATED 20-08-2010 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, M/O.HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY), B - WING GROUND FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, CGC SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 K.R.VENKITACHALAM LECTURER IN PHYSICS (RETIRED), UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, RESIDING AT SHANTY KUTOOR, D-137, SIXTH CROSS ROAD, MAHARAJA NAGAR, THIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU-600102.** - **2 MOHANAN MANGALASSERRY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.K.K.NANU NAMBIAR (LATE) PRINCIPAL, GSSS, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, ANDROTH-682555.** **3 ABDUL HAMEED KOYA, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.C.G.MUTHUKOYA (LATE), PRINCIPAL, DIET, KAVARATHY, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP-682555.** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 5 - **4 K.P.MOHAMMED KOYA, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.SHAIK KOYA P., LECTURER IN PHYSICS, G.N.S.S.S., KADAMATH (RETIRED), C.O.HAJARAMMABI, ICDS, KAVARATHY-682555.** - **5 M.ATTAKOYA, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.SHAIK KOYA PEECHANAL, PRINCIPAL, JNSSS, KADAMATH, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP. (RETIRED) 682555.** - **6 K.HAJIROMMABI, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.M.K.CHERIYA KOYA, LECTURER IN CHEMISTRY, JNSS, KADAMATH-682550.** - **7 K.M.SAYED, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.P.KOYA, PRINCIPAL, MGSSS, ANDROTH (RETIRED), RESIDING AT KUTTIYAM MUKRIYODA, AGATTI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP-682555.** - **8 THE ADMINISTRATOR, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHY-682555.** - **9 THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KAVARATHY-682555.** - **R1-7 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN** - **R8-9 BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP R8-9 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC, LAKSHADWEEP ADMN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).2472/2011(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 6 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K. Vinod Chandran, J.** **The issue raised by the Union of India is as to the entitlement of 'Uniform Grade Structure' applicable to Group 'A' staff; to the persons in the dying cadre of Lecturers, who were re-designated as Higher Secondary School Teachers [HSSTs].** **2. The genesis of the controversy is that the applicants before the Tribunal, while continuing as Lecturers, were re-designated as Junior Lecturers, on Pre-degree being delinked from University education and placed within the ambit of the Higher Secondary Education [HSE]. This was a change brought about all over the State of Kerala and the Union Territory of Lakshadweep; the Colleges in the U.T being affiliated to the Calicut University. The U.T had two junior colleges, where only Pre-degree courses of two years were the approved courses taught; to be taken by a Secondary** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 7 **School Leaving Certificate holder for the purpose of pursuing his Degree education. Pre-degree being delinked from Collegiate Education and placed under Higher Secondary Education, the Lecturers were redesignated as Junior lecturers and were found to be entitled to the salary of a High School teacher.** **3. The question arose as to what should be their pay, which was settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Union of India and Others v. P. Sathikumarana Nair and others [AIR 1997 SC 2344]**_ **. We see from the judgment that when the redesignation was carried out, there were a batch of writ petitions filed before this Court. A learned Single Judge found that there could be no redesignation of the Lecturers of the two erstwhile colleges, since they cannot be equated with Secondary High School Post-Graduate teachers, who alone could be designated as Junior Lecturers. On that reasoning it was held that they were entitled to the scale of Rs.400-800 applicable to Lecturers** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 8 **rather than the scale of Rs.350-700, which is applicable to Junior Lecturers in the Secondary High School. A Division Bench affirmed the judgment, against which Union of India raised a challenge before the Supreme Court.** **4. While the matter was pending, the Union of India rejected the claim on the consideration directed by the High Court. The petitioners initiated a contempt proceeding in which, since there was no stay in the Civil appeal, it was found that there could be no re-designation or denial of higher pay scale to the petitioners. The UoI complied with the directions and the petitioners moved the Civil appeal, apprehending a refund if the appeal is allowed. The Supreme Court directed implementation of the decision without any liability for refund.** **5. Again a batch of applications were filed before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal took a different view, upon which SLPs were filed before** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 9 **the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the orders of the Tribunal itself. Later all these matters were taken together for consideration in** _**P. Sathikumaran Nair and Others**_ **[supra], cited by us herein above. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that before the High Court, in the first round of litigation, the respondent Union of India had never taken up a contention that the nature, status or functions attributable to the post of Lecturers in the Predegree Colleges were different from those of a Lecturer in a Degree College. It was also found on facts that all over Kerala, the Lecturers who were teaching Pre-Degree Courses were designated as Lecturers and granted pay and allowances akin to that drawn by the Lecturers teaching Degree Courses. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court setting aside the orders of the Tribunal, which held otherwise.** **6. Later, again there was an issue of whether the Lecturers, who were granted a higher** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 10 **pay, could be considered as being included under Group 'A'. There was a specific direction by the Tribunal, which was complied with by Annexure A8 by the Administration of the U.T. All the applicants, who were found to be persons included in the dying cadre, were deemed to be Group 'A' Officers. The present batch of writ petitions were filed by the applicants claiming financial upgradation by reason of the stagnation in their entry post of Lecturers.** **7. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India would point out that the applicants were given a higher pay than that which was their entitlement. While the HSSTs were drawing a pay in the scale Rs.350-700/- in Group 'D', the applicants were fixed in a higher pay scale of Rs.400-800/-, though they were discharging the very same duties as an HSST. In such circumstances, there is no question of a financial upgradation, which has already been granted to them by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Sri.T.V. Vinu, appearing for** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 11 **the Lakshadweep Administration, supports the ASGI and adds that the problem also arose insofar as the Tribunal having fixed specific rates of pay, which is in violation of the terms of the 5[th] Pay Commission. The Tribunal ought not to have fixed the pay scales under which they were to be granted upgradation after completion of 8,13 & 18 years. It is also contended that though the Lakshadweep Administration had made a recommendation, the final word is of the Union of India. The Union of India had rejected the said proposal and Career Progression being a concession to get over the hardship of stagnation, is not a normal incidence of service and is in the realm of policy. There could be no direction to implement a particular upgradation in the case of the applicants.** ## **8. The learned Counsel for the respondents,** **who were the applicants before the Tribunal, argued that an ACP Scheme is applicable only to Group 'B', 'C' & 'D' employees under the Central Government.** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 12 **For Grade-A, only in isolated posts, could there be an ACP applied as recommended by the Pay Commission. Insofar as Group 'A' are concerned, the benefit conferred by the respective pay commissions is a 'Uniform Grade Structure', by which a financial up-gradation to the higher pay scale is provided, on Group 'A' personnel stagnating in one particular post. This was what was done by the Tribunal and it could not be faulted, since it is the recommendation under the 5[th] Central Pay Commission, that was accepted by the Tribunal.** **9. Having gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**P. Sathikumarana Nair and Others**_ **, we do not think that it was in the nature of a financial up-gradation that the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the applicants a higher pay scale of Rs.400-800/- as against the pay scale of Rs.350-700/- applicable to Teachers in the Secondary School level. The finding was specifically that they having been appointed as** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 13 **Lecturers in the Junior Colleges, they could not be re-designated as Junior Lecturers nor granted a lesser pay than that allowed to Lecturers in a Degree College. The above declaration made by the Supreme Court was on sound reasoning and not as a concession or a mere financial up-gradation. The UoI cannot take shelter under that to refuse further financial up-gradation applicable to GroupA staff, if there is stagnation in the cadre. If that be accepted, then it is admitted that there were no promotion avenues available to the applicants and that they were a vanishing cadre of employees, substituted by Higher Secondary Teachers. That they are Group-A (Gazetted)staff also cannot be disputed since the Administration has deemed them to be so, by Annexure-A8 produced in the O.A.** **10. We perfectly agree with the submission of the Administration that the final word is of the Union of India and that Career Progression** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 14 **benefits, are concessions in mitigation of the evil of stagnation, purely in the realm of policy. However, it is not in dispute that the Union of India has accepted the recommendations of the 5[th] Pay Commission which amongst others, offer the benefit of a 'Uniform Grade Structure' for Group 'A' staff. The policy having been spelled out, the only question is whether the same has to be extended to the applicants, who were deemed to be Group 'A' staff as per Annexure A8.** **11. We quote from the decision in** _**East End Dwelling Company Ltd. Vs. Finsbury Borough Council 1952 AC 109**_ **, quoted with approval, frequently by the Courts in India, one of which decisions is reported in** _**1991 Supp(1) SCC 81 Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. Vs. State Of Orissa:**_ _**“If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it …. The statute says that you**_ OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 15 _**must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs.”**_ **When there is a deeming fiction employed the necessary consequences should follow. When the applicants are deemed to be Group-A, then every benefit, concession and privilege accorded to that category should necessarily follow.** **12. In such circumstances, we cannot find any interference to the policy of the Central Government having been made by the Tribunal. However, we look at the specific scales as indicated by the Tribunal, which, it is submitted by the learned ASGI and the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration, is against the corresponding pay scales in the revised category. We also take note of the order of the Tribunal produced in Annexure R1H for better understanding of the recommendations of the 5[th] Pay Commission, which has been extracted there under.** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 16 ## **We extract the following:** _**“49.13 Our recommendations Pay Scale:**_ _**The introduction of new grades necessitates some restructuring of these cadres involving interspersing of existing posts among different grades of pay. We recommend the following revised uniform grade structures for these services”.**_ |**Grade**|**Scale of Pay**|**Eligibility for**<br>**functorial**<br>**promotion**| |---|---|---| |**Grade IV Service**|**Rs.2200-4000/-**|**Entry Grade**| |**Grade III Service**|**Rs.3000-4500/-**|**8 years of total**<br>**service**| |**Grade II Service**|**Rs.3700-5000/-**|**13 years of total**<br>**service**| |**Grade I Service**|**Rs.4500-5700/-**|**18years of total**<br>**service**| ## **13. We see from the recommendation made by** **the Administration of Lakshadweep, which also has been tabulated in inner page 12 of the impugned order of the Tribunal and find it to be similar insofar as the pay scales of 01.01.1986. On 01.01.1986 the minimum of the scale was Rs.2,2004,000/- with a pay scale of Rs.3000-4500/- being** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 17 **applicable after 8 years of total service, Rs.37005000/- after 13 years of total service and Rs.45005700/- after 18 years of total service. We only say that the corresponding scales applicable on the 5[th] Pay Commission recommendations as on 01.01.1996 have to be applied insofar as the financial upgradation in the respective years. We hence make it clear that such up-gradation is definitely entitled to the applicants before the Tribunal, who were deemed to be Grade A employees under the Union of India, but on the corresponding pay scales as found above.** **We dismiss the original petitions with the above modification. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.** ## **Sd/-** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** **Sd/-** ## **V.G. ARUN, JUDGE.** **//True Copy//** **P.A. To Judge** **sp/05/11/19** OP (CAT).No.2472 OF 2011(Z) 18 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 2472/2011** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 REPLY STATEMENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/08/2010 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA NO.52/2009.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.62/2009 FILED BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/10/2002 IN OP NO.2868182002(S).** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 2520/2011** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/08/2010 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA NO.655/2009.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.655/2009 FILED BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 1997 AIR SC PAGE 2344.** **EXHIBIT R1 B TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO.18/1/94UT.I DATED 09/02/1998.** **EXHIBIT R1 C TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO.15-10/94 EDN. VOL.II DATED 26/02/98. EXHIBIT R1 D TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO.18/1/94EDN. DATED 30/01/1999. EXHIBIT R1 E TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO.18/65/2001-EDN/ESTT. DATED 12/08/2005. EXHIBIT R1 F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.28681/2002 DATED 23/10/2002. EXHIBIT R1 G TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO.19/5/2005SS(CC) DATED 27/05/2005. EXHIBIT R1 H TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OA NO.43/2006 DATED 07/08/2007. EXHIBIT R1 I TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO.18/49/2007-EDN/ESTT DATED 17/03/2008. EXHIBIT R1 J TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO.18/8/2007-EDN/ESTT.VOL.II/4457 DATED 23/12/2008 ALONG WITH LETTER F.NO.15-6/2006UT.I. DATED 26/03/2008. EXHIBIT R1 K TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS F.NO.38/01/2006-EDN/ESTT.320 DATED 31/03/2009.**