Writ Appeal No. 564 of 2021

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA** **FRIDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944** **WA NO. 564 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2021 IN WP(C) 30256/2018** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDNETS 1 & 3 TO 9:** - **1 BIJU P.S., AGED 45 YEARS, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.** - **2 SINDHUMOL.A, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.** - **3 ANILKUMAR P.S, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.** - **4 MAYAKRISHNAN, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.** - **5 PREMJITH P.D, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.** - **6 ROMISON M.J, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.** - **7 BINDHU ANTONY, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR.** - **8 ARAVIND.K.S, TECHNICIAN GRADE-II(INSTRUCTOR GRADE II), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR. BY ADVS. K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR** Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 2 :- ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 CENTRE FOR CONTINUING EDUCATION, KERALA ANATHARA LANE, CHARACHIRA, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN-695 003.** - **4 PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, MUNNAR-685 612. BY ADVS. SMT.B.VINITHA SR GP SMT.LATHA ANAND** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **02.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 3 :- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ. ----------------------------------------------Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021** **----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of September, 2022.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.02.2021 in W.P.(C) No.30256 of 2018. The appellants were petitioners 1 and 3 to 9 in the writ petition. Parties are referred to in this judgement for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition. 2. The petitioners are working as Instructors Grade II in the College of Engineering, Munnar (the College) run by the third respondent, the Centre for Continuing Education (the CCEK), an autonomous body set up by the State Government to establish and run Centres in the field of education. The dispute relates to the right of the petitioners to Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 4 :- claim the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth Pay Revision Commission appointed by the State Government for revision of the pay and other benefits of the similarly placed State Government employees, which was implemented as per Ext.P17 order for the State Government employees with effect from 01.07.2009. 3. It is stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that even though the Executive Committee of the CCEK has decided to extend the benefits of Ext.P17 order to the staff of the College, the State Government has refused to accord permission for the same in terms of Ext.P35 order, taking the stand that Ext.P17 order would apply only to State Government employees. According to the petitioners, Ext.P35 order is illegal inasmuch as they are entitled to the pay scales as granted by the State Government to its employees in the Department of Technical Education, in terms of their conditions of service. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this court in the writ petition challenging Ext.P35 order. It is alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition that the Government has extended the benefits of Ext.P17 order to two employees of the College as per Exts.P32 and P33 orders, and the stand taken by Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 5 :- the Government in Ext.P35 order to deny the said benefits to the petitioners is therefore, discriminatory. The petitioners therefore, claimed in the writ petition, directions to the Government to accord permission to the CCEK to extend to the staff of the College, the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth Pay Revision Commission, as also the recommendations of the Tenth Pay Revision Commission, which was implemented in the meanwhile by the State Government for the State Government employees as per Ext.P31 order dated 20.01.2016. 4. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage itself taking the view that the petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that they are entitled to the benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commissions constituted by the Government for revision of the pay and other benefits of the State Government employees. The appeal is against the said decision of the learned Single Judge. 5. Since the writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage itself, a counter affidavit has been filed in the writ appeal on behalf of the State reiterating the stand in Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 6 :- Ext.P35 Government Order. It was contended by the State in the counter affidavit that the CCEK and its sub-centres were constituted as autonomous bodies and as such, the College has to sustain itself on the income generated by it. 6. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the State stating, among others, that there are other autonomous bodies which are also running engineering colleges under the Higher Education Department of the State Government; that the staff of the engineering colleges run by such bodies have been extended the benefits of Exts.P17 and P31 orders and there is therefore no justification for denying the said benefits to the staff of the College run by the CCEK. 7. A statement has been filed on behalf of the CCEK in the writ appeal. It is stated, among others, in the said statement that the College is only a self financing institution which has to sustain itself on the income generated through the fees collected from the students; that the College is facing acute financial constraints and not in a position to disburse salary to its staff; that the College is being run presently on the funds provided by the CCEK; that the CCEK has disbursed to Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 7 :- the College a sum of Rs.11,31,17,671/- between November, 2016 and July, 2021 and the CCEK is not in a position to provide any further financial assistance to the College. 8. The writ appeal was heard in part on 22.07.2022. On hearing the parties for sometime, this court felt that there is no satisfactory explanation in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government as to the disparity in the fund allocations made by the State Government to the CCEK, the Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) and to LBS Centre for Science and Technology (LBS Centre) which are similar autonomous bodies running engineering colleges. The learned Government Pleader who was appearing for the State in the matter then undertook to place on record an additional affidavit explaining the said disparity and accordingly an additional affidavit has been filed by the State in the matter on 03.08.2022. The essence of the additional affidavit is that IHRD is running nine engineering colleges and LBS Centre is running two engineering colleges; that even those organisations are not able to sustain themselves with the funds generated by them and that the Government is extending to all the organisations financial assistance only by way of loans. It is also stated in the Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 8 :- said affidavit that since the College is not able to run on its own, the Executive Committee of the CCEK has decided to progressively close down the College and that the proposal submitted by the CCEK for the said purpose is under consideration. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the CCEK as also the learned Government Pleader. 10. The specific pleading of the petitioners in the writ petition was that the CCEK is willing and capable of extending to the staff of the College the benefits claimed by them; that formal permission of the State Government is required for the same and that the State Government has denied the permission on the ground that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits claimed. It is seen that having realised in the course of the proceedings that even the CCEK has exhausted its resources by supporting the College and that the benefits claimed by the petitioners could be received only if the State Government extends financial aid to the CCEK, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing was that insofar as the benefit has been Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 9 :- extended by IHRD and LBS Centre to the staff of the engineering colleges run by them with the financial aid provided by the State Government, the State is bound to extend financial aid to the CCEK also to extend the same benefits to the staff of their College. In order to show that IHRD and LBS Centre have extended the benefits, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice Exts.P44, P46, P47 and P49 orders issued by the Government, in terms of which the Government accorded sanction to IHRD and LBS Centre to extend to the staff of the engineering colleges run by them, the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth and Tenth Pay Revision Commissions, and Exts.P50 and P51 orders, in terms of which the Government extended financial aid to IHRD and LBS Centre for disbursement of salary and other benefits to its employees. It was also argued by the learned counsel that since the Government has ordered to extend the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth Pay Revision Commission to two employees of the College, at any rate, the Government cannot deny the benefits to the remaining similarly placed employees of the College. 11. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 10 :- stand taken by the Government in the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed in the matter. In addition, the learned Government Pleader has also submitted that Ext.P4 special provisions applicable to the College, which are part of the conditions of service of the staff of the CCEK, do not confer any right on the petitioners to claim the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth and Tenth Pay Revision Commissions. The learned Government Pleader has reinforced the said argument placing reliance on the provisions contained in the Rules and Regulations for starting sub-centres which are part of the Memorandum of Association of the CCEK, pointing out that the College is only a sub-centre under the CCEK. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for the CCEK supported the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader. On a query from the court as to the justification for extending the benefits of the Pay Revision Commissions to two employees of the College, the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel is that the employee referred to in Ext.P33 order is presently employed in another organisation which was earlier part of the CCEK and the same does not in any manner affect the finances of the CCEK. As regards Ext.P32 order, the Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 11 :- learned Standing Counsel was not in a position to give any satisfactory explanation. He sought further time to get instructions in that regard. 13. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the College is not a sub-centre under the CCEK, but an institution run by the CCEK itself and the rules applicable to the sub-centres do not therefore apply to the College. 14. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 15. Ext.P42 is the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations of the CCEK. Ext.P42 contains two parts, the first part dealing with the Rules and Regulations of the CCEK and the second part dealing with the Rules and Regulations of starting sub-centres. Rule I(a) of the Rules and Regulations of former defines the CCEK thus: (a). The “Centre” means Centre for Continuing Education, Kerala. Rule I of the Rules and Regulations of starting sub-centres reads thus: I. For the effective implementation of the Continuing Education Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 12 :- Programmes, Sub-Centres shall be started in Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics and Arts and Science Colleges. The Principal, of the above institutions shall prepare necessary project report and forward it to the Director, Centre for Continuing Education Kerala, IV Floor, Rema Plaza, S.S.Kovil Road, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram-1. Even though the Centre is defined in the Rules and Regulations as the Centre for Continuing Education, Kerala, Rule I of the Rules and Regulations for starting sub-centres would indicate beyond doubt that an engineering college established and run by the CCEK was not intended to be a sub-centre, but intended to be only a part of the CCEK. We take this view also for the reason that the conditions of service of the staff of the CCEK which are approved by the Government in terms of Ext.P3 order takes within its purview the staff of the engineering college run by the CCEK as well and if the engineering college was one intended to be a sub-centre, there is no reason why the staff of the engineering college should be brought under the purview of the conditions of service formulated for the staff of the CCEK. 16. As noted, the petitioners claim the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth and Tenth Pay Revision Commissions based on the provisions contained in the special provisions applicable to the College which are part of the Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 13 :- conditions of service of the staff of the CCEK. The clause relied on by the petitioners for this purpose reads thus: (D) LIBRARY LABORATORY STAFF; While appointing staff to the above services on a regular basis the scale of pay admissible to such posts in the Department of Technical Education, Government of Kerala shall be followed. But it is seen that it is stated in clause (C) of the special provisions that the College being a self-financing institution, wholly sustaining on the income generated through its efforts, it shall strive to provide the maximum possible financial package to its staff in proportion to the income generated. The relevant clause reads thus: (C) STAFF PATTERN; Staff pattern shall be as per the norms prescribed by the AICTE. Being a self financing institution wholly sustaining on the income generated through its efforts, it shall strive to provide the maximum possible financial package to the staff in proportion to the income generated. A combined reading of the clauses referred to above would indicate beyond doubt that the entitlement of the staff of the College is only a pay package in proportion to the income generated by the college. In other words, the obligation of the CCEK to extend to the staff of the College the scale of pay admissible to such posts in the Department of Technical Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 14 :- Education arises only if the CCEK could afford the same, having regard to the income generated by it. The special provisions applicable to the College do not, therefore, confer on the staff of the College a right to claim the scale of pay at par with the scale of pay applicable to such posts in the Department of Technical Education. 17. The surviving question is as to whether the State has any obligation to extend to the staff of the College the benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commissions. The materials on record indicate that the CCEK is only an autonomous body caused to be registered by the Government as a society under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act for establishing and running Centres for Continuing Education. The intention behind establishing such a body seems to be that the State wanted to make available facilities for higher education at affordable cost without incurring any financial liability so as to discharge its constitutional obligations in the field of higher education, and at the same time, by retaining a pervasive control over the same. Being an entity constituted by the State, the State has certainly a duty to manage the affairs of Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 15 :- such bodies to ensure that they serve its desired purpose. Similarly, insofar as the State retains a pervasive control over the affairs of the CCEK, its actions shall be fair, just and reasonable and shall not be arbitrary. True, the State Government is extending financial aid to such bodies by way of loans for their establishment and to ensure their existence. But, that does not mean that the State is legally obliged to discharge all its financial obligations. In other words, the petitioners who are only employees of a self-financing institution run by the CCEK cannot be heard to contend that the State has any obligation to treat the petitioners at par with the State Government employees by extending to them the benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commissions. This position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in **State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan** , (2022) 4 SCC 193. Paragraph 26 of the judgment in the said case reads thus: 26. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on a par with the government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 16 :- a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the autonomous Board/body cannot be put on a par. For the aforesaid reason, the petitioners cannot also be heard to contend that merely for the reason that the State Government has permitted similarly placed autonomous bodies to extend to its employees benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commissions, the State Government is obliged under law to extend the same benefits to the staff of the college run by the CCEK as well, for there will be umpteen reasons for an executive government to take such decisions and in the absence of any malice attributed to the State Government for not treating the CCEK at par with other similar autonomous bodies, it is unnecessary for the Court to delve deep into those reasons. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not controvert the submission made by the Standing Counsel for Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 17 :- the CCEK that the employee referred to in Ext.P33 order is presently employed in another organisation which was earlier part of the CCEK and the same does not in any manner affect the finances of the CCEK. As noted, the Standing Counsel was not in a position to give any satisfactory justification for the Government extending the benefits of the recommendations of the Ninth Pay Revision Commission to the staff of the college referred to in Ext.P32 order. A perusal of Ext.P32 order indicates that in terms of an order earlier passed, the Government permitted the CCEK to absorb the said staff member who was earlier working in another body namely Malabar Cancer Centre, in the CCEK in the post of Superintendent after terminating his lien in Malabar Cancer Centre without incorporating specific terms and conditions. As per Ext.P32 order, it is seen that the Government has only approved the decision of the CCEK to give him a particular scale of pay as provided for in the recommendations of the Ninth Pay Revision Commission. The said order cannot be understood as an order extending the benefits of the Ninth Pay Revision Commission to one of the staff members of the College. The argument advanced on the strength of Ext.P32 Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 18 :- order also, therefore fails. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, there is no merit in the writ appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** Sd/- **C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** ds 26.08.2022 Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 19 :- ## **APPENDIX** ## **RESPONDENT ANNEXURES** |**Annexure R1(a)**|**G.O.(Rt)No. 724/2022/H.Edn. dated,**| |---|---| ||**19.05.2022**| |**Annexure R1(b)**|**True copy of the 36th Executive**| ||**meeting of CCEK held on 06.08.2020**| |**PETITIONER EXHIBITS**|| |**Exhibit P36.**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4-12-**| ||**2013 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P37**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-11-**| ||**2013 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**Exhibit P38**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**| ||**4/3/2013 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**Exhibit P39**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-1-**| ||**2014 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**Exhibit P40**|**A FULL TEXT OF THE MINUTES OF 28TH**| ||**MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF**| ||**THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 5-4-2014**| |**Exhibit P41**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-7-**| ||**2014 FORWARDED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE**| ||**OFFICER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE**| ||**3RD RESPONDENT**| |**Exhibit P42**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF**| ||**ASSOCIATION AND RULES AND REGULATIONS**| ||**FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT CENTRE FOR**| ||**CONTINUING EDUCATION KERALA,**| |**Exhibit P43**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-12-**| ||**2020 FORWARDED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**Exhibit P44**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**DATED 9-12-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF**| ||**9TH PAY REVISION TO THE EMPLOYEES OF**| ||**THE IHRD AND INSTITUTIONS.**| |**Exhibit P45**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 17-**| ||**12-2014 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF**| ||**HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT**| Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 20 :- |**Exhibit P46**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| |---|---| ||**DATED 28-2-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE BENEFITS OF**| ||**THE 9TH PAY REVISION TO THE EMPLOYEES**| ||**OF LBS CENTRE & ENGINEERING COLLEGES.**| |**Exhibit P47**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**DATED 13-11-2019 EXTENDING THE**| ||**BENEFITS OF 10TH PAY REVISION TO THE**| ||**EMPLOYEES OF IHRD AND ALLIED**| ||**INSTITUTIONS**| |**Exhibit P48**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED**| ||**31-12-2019 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF**| ||**HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT.**| |**Exhibit P49**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**DATED 4-7-2018 EXTENDING THE BENEFITS**| ||**OF 10TH PAY REVISION TO THE EMPLOYEES**| ||**OF LBS CENTRE AND ENGINEERING COLLEGES**| |**Exhibit P50**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**DATED 6-2-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P51**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**DATED 4-2-2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P52**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-12-**| ||**2020 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT**| ||**DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR CONTINUING**| ||**EDUCATION, KERALA TO THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit P53**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-**| ||**10-2019 IN WP-C NO. 31889/2018**| |**Exhibit P54**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**DATED 14-1-1987 OF HIGHER EDUCATION**| ||**(G) DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH ITS**| ||**APPENDIX.**| |**Exhibit P55**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED.**| ||**12-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF**| ||**HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT.**| |**Exhibit P56**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER**| ||**DATED. 18-3-2022 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA HIGHER EDUCATION**| ||**(G) DEPARTMENT.**| Writ Appeal No.564 of 2021 -: 21 :- **Exhibit P57** **A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 20-12-2018** **Exhibit P58 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 26-3-2019 .** **Exhibit P59 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 13-8-2021** **Exhibit P60 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 7-2-2022** **Exhibit P61 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 18-4-2022** **Exhibit P62 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 10-5-2022 Exhibit P63 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 20-7-2022** **Exhibit P64 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED. 4-2-2021 AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF RUPEES TWO CRORES TO THE LBS CENTRE FOR MEETING THE SALARY AND ALLOWANCES OF THEIR STAFF.** **Exhibit P65** **A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT.) NO. 1719/2022/GAD DATED 26-4-2022**