RAVVA UTTEJ v. Chhattisgarh State Power Companies Limited (C L)

Judgment

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent authorities whereby the respondents have not granted the advance increment upon completion of Ph.D. in accordance with the provisions of Order dated

14.03.1984, the petitioner having no other recourse or remedy available for redressal of grievance; is constrained to approach this Court for seeking justice.

Brief facts of the case, as adumbrated by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is presently working as Office Assistant Grade-II, in the respondent company i.e., Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited. After reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, State of Chhattisgarh was formed and the erstwhile MPEB was reorganized into Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB). Later on, vide notification dated 19.12.2008 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board was reorganized into the following five companies which are:- Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited, Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Chhattisgarh State 3 Power Distribution Company Limited, Chhattisgarh State Power Trading Company Limited. The respondent Company i.e., Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) came in existence w.e.f. 01.01.2009. All the orders, circulars, notifications and bye-laws existing and prevailing in the erstwhile MPEB were duly adopted by the erstwhile CSEB and the same were duly adopted by the respondent Company. The petitioner is a holder of Master of Arts Degree in Psychology the copy of the same is annexed as Annexure P/03, The petitioner actively took part in various conferences and also presented papers in varied Psychology subjects. The certificates of participation and presentation of paper is annexed as Annexure P/04. The copy of the order directing the petitioner to take part in the Labour Training Program conducted by the Central Board for Workers Education, Raipur on 03.04.2006 and 04.04.2006 is Annexure P/05 and copy of his attendance certificate is Annexure P/06. Therafter, he was directed by the respondents to pursue a 21 days full time training on “Personality Development Programme” and the successful completion of the said programme certificate is annexed herein as Annexure P/07. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to take part in the four days training programme which was conducted on 11.07.2006 to 14.07.2006 the copy of the same is annexed herein as Annexure P/08. The petitioner vide application dated 17.08.2009 sought permission from the respondent authorities for pursuing Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology in Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Raipur (C.G.) which is annexed herein as Annexure P/09. The respondent authorities vide order dated 25.08.2009 granted permission to the petitioner to pursue Ph.D in Faculty of Social Sciences, Subject Psychology, in topic 4 Clinical Pyschology from Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Raipur (C.G.) Annexure P/10. The respondents vide circular dated 25.05.2011 directed the petitioner to conduct a Discourse on Terrorism and Violence on 25.05.2011 vide Annexure P/11. The petitioner vide circular dated 25.05.2011 was directed by the respondents to conduct Lecture series on Unity in Diversity vide Annexure P/12. The respondents vide order dated 25.01.2012 directed the petitioner to impart training to workers in Rajnandgaon O & M division on 31.01.2012 under the 2 day Workers Development Training Programme vide Annexure P/13. The respondents vide order dated 06.02.2012 directed the petitioner to impart training to workers in Sakti O & M on 07.02.2012 under the 2 day Workers Development Training Programme vide Annexure P/14. The respondents vide order dated 21.02.2012 directed the petitioner to impart training at Raipur Headquarter 22.02.2012 under the 2 day Workers Development Training Programme on “Stress management” vide Annexure P/15. The respondents vide order dated 17.05.2012 directed the petitioner to impart training at various places as per the Training Programme Schedule of the Workers Development Training Programme is annexed vide Annexure P/16 to which the petitioner fully complied with and different regions of which the training programme held are Korba region annexed as Annexure P/17, Durg region annexed as Annexure P/18, Raigarh region Annexed as Annexure P/19, Tilda region annexed as Annexure P/20, Rajnandgaon region annexed as Annexure P/21 and Bhilai region annexed as Annexure P/22. In the meantime, the petitioner successfully completed her Ph.D. in Psychology from Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Raipur (C.G.) and submitted her thesis on the topic “Life Satisfaction in 5 relation to Alexithymia Borderline Personality Disorder and Marital Status of Middle Aged People” on 13.08.2014, its copy is annexed as Annexure P/23, copy of the provisional certificate for Ph.D. dated

16.10.2014 is annexed as Annexure P/24 and the copy of the newspaper articles dated 01.09.2014 reflecting the awarding of Ph. D. to the petitioner is being annexed as Annexure P/25. In pursuance of the above provisions, the petitioner submitted her representation dated

16.09.2014 seeking two advance increments vide Annexure P/28 and after her successful completion of Ph. D. the petitioner again submitted her representation dated 27.10.2014 for the grant of two advance increments which is annexed as Annexure P/29. The respondents in light of the representations submitted by the petitioner, vide letter dated

09.01.2015 directed the petitioner to furnish information as to how the Ph. D. conferred upon the petitioner is related to the activities being carried out by the Respondent Company at the earliest vide order dated Annexure P/30. The petitioner submitted her reply dated

16.01.2025 to the above letter and furnished the necessary information and also highlighted the fact that the respondents have been directing the petitioner to impart training to the workers and employees of the respondent Company which is annexed as Annexure P/31. Despite her efforts, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the respondent authorities for a long time, the petitioner then submitted a reminder letter dated 10.02.2015 with respect to the grant of advance annual increment upon completion of Ph.D in light of the Board’s Order dated 14.03.1984 vide Annexure P/32. The respondents without taking any action on the representation preferred by the petitioner, again vide order dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure P/33) directed the petitioner to 6 impart training under the 2 days’ vocational training programme to be conducted at Bilaspur on 09.03.2015 and 10.03.2015. The petitioner was issued warning vide letter dated 12.03.2015 by the Senior Accounting Officer-I, Raipur directing the petitioner to not to send any representation to the authorities above directly and the same to be sent through proper channel, copy of the letter vide order dated 12.03.2015 is annexed as Annexure P/34. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her representation on 23.03.2015 (Annexure P/35) through proper channel for grant of advance annual increment upon completion of Ph.D in light of the Board’s order dated 14.03.1984 and she furnished the necessary information as requested by the respondent authorities. Vide orders dated 07.04.2015 (Annexure P/1) and 30.03.2015 (Annexure P/2) rejected the representation of the petitioner by holding that the degree obtained by the petitioner is not related/relevant to the activities being carried out by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL). Being aggrieved by the non-grant of advance increment, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated

27.06.2015 to the Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited vide Annexure P/36. The petitioner having no other recourse or remedy available for redressal of grievance is constrained to approach this Court for seeking justice. Hence, the present Writ Petition sought for by the petition for the following reliefs:- “a) Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. b) Issue an appropriate writ setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 (Annexure P/01). c) Issue an appropriate writ setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure P/02). d) Issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant the benefit of two advance increment upon completion of Ph. 7 D. to the petitioner with effect from 13.08.2014 in accordance with the provisions of the order dated 14.03.1984. e) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 (Annexure P/01) and 30.03.2015 (Annexure P/02) are reliable to be quashed and set aside. The respondents on a misconceived notion have rejected the representations of the petitioner by holding that the Ph.D. degree obtained by the petitioner is not related/relevant to the activities being carried out by the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL). The action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of advance increment upon completion of Ph.D. degree is contrary to law and in violation of the provisions of the Order dated 14.03.1984 (Annexure P/26) which has been duly adopted by the respondent company which is evident from the extract of the Rules pertaining to increment and Disciplinary Action applicable upon the respondent company (Annexure P/27) because such action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of advance increment to the petitioner upon completion Ph.D. in a mechanical manner and without application of mind amounts to arbitrariness. The action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of advance increment to the petitioner upon completion of Ph.D. is discriminatory as the respondents have conferred the benefit of advance increment upon completion of Ph.D. to one Dr. (Smt.) Alpana Sharat Tiwari and Dr. Swati Tiwari vide order dated 25.06.2010. It is pertinent to mention that Dr. (Smt.) Alpana Sharat Tiwari has obtained the Ph.D. degree 8 from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur in Management and submitted her thesis on the topic “Role of IT in leveraging Human Resources: An Indian Industry Context” and copy of this order is Annexure P/37. The copy of note sheet dated 24.06.2010 which reflects that Dr. Swati Tiwari has obtained the Ph.D. degree from Department of Commerce, Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar in Finance is being annexed as (Annexure P/38), such action of the respondents for grant of benefit of one/two advance increments to the above named persons and denial of the same benefit to the petitioner clearly establishes discrimination. The representations submitted by the petitioner through proper channel had to be placed before the appropriate authority but instead the Senior Accounting Officer-I, Raipur (respondent No. 4) had passed the impugned order dated 30.03.2015 which was then followed by the impugned order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Executive Director (HR), Raipur (respondent No. 3) which clearly goes on to establish that the impugned orders have been passed without application of mind. The rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the Senior Accounting Officer-I, Raipur (respondent No. 4) is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and such rejection suffers from mala fide as the respondent No. 4 vide order dated 12.03.2015 (Annexure P/34) had issued warning to the petitioner for directly submitting the representation to the headquarter and holding such action of the petitioner due to misconduct, such action of the respondents amount to misuse of official post and powers conferred upon thereto. The action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of advance increment upon completion of Ph.D. is also contrary to the National Training Policy, 2012 issued by the Government of India, 9 Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training which provides for capacity building measures for the civil servants and employees which would further strengthen the Institutional mechanism. The office memorandum dated 19.01.2012 along with the National Training Policy, 2012 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions is being annexed as Annexure P/39. The National Training Policy, 2012 is applicable upon the respondent company and despite using the services of the petitioner for imparting training to its employees, the respondent authorities have rejected the grant of advance increment upon completion of Ph.D. such action of the respondents is untenable. So, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and respondents are directed to grant two advance increment.

4. Reliance has been placed on the order dated 31.10.2006 passed in WP No. 5000 of 1997 and in order dated 12.08.2014 passed in WA No. 222 of 2011 by the Hon’ble High Court of M.P.

5. Learned counsel for respondents strongly oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is claiming two annual increments in accordance with the terms of circular dated 14.03.1984, but it is clear from this circular that grant of two increments to those employees who obtain Post Graduate Diploma or Post Graduate Degree qualifications in Engineering or fee in the final examination of ICWA or acquire the qualification on the Ph.D., D.Phill, D. Litt after fulfilling the specified conditions provided the subject is related to activities of the Board. The petitioner is a Post Graduate (MA. in Psychology) which is in the Arts stream and she had sought for and 10 obtained permission of the answering respondents to prosecute her higher studies at Doctorate level and to obtain Ph.D. As per the general conditions of service, every employee desiring to prosecute higher studies is required to obtain permission of the answering respondents and the answering respondents had granted her permission to prosecute higher studies leading to Ph.D (P/10) on 25.08.2009 and this direction has no significance or relation to the grant of increments and such permission does not confer any right on such employee/the petitioner to stake a claim for additional increments. The purpose of the said permission is on one hand to encourage the employees to improve upon their qualifications and on the other to ensure that the higher studies do not interfere with the discharge of their offiicial duties during the period of higher studies. The petitioner had registered for Ph.D. on 27.01.2010 in Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur and she submitted her thesis on “Life Satisfaction in relation to Alexithymia Borderline Personality Disorder and Marital status of Middle Aged People” on 12.08.2014 and she got her provisional certificate of Ph.D. on 13.08.2014. The petitioner filed various certificates to show that her Ph.D. was useful to the activities of the answering respondents and they have taken advantage of her obtaining Ph.D. It is far from truth and the claim of the petitioner is far fetched and she has been working as Office Assistant Gr. II in the Accounts Department. All these annexure show that the training for Workers Development was ongoing in-house program and many employees were associated with it including the petitioner. The petitioner was not associated with these programs not because she was a Ph.D. like any other employee, but she was too associated with the said ongoing program. She obtained 11 her Ph.D long after these programs were over, therefore, she cannot take the credit for organizing the training program or imparting training to the workers because of her Ph.D. The petitioner’s participation in the workers Development Training program had no relationship with her Ph.D nor does it add to her career growth or to her efficiency in the discharge of her duties. By virtue of her experience in the Accounts Department, she was promoted to higher grades in the Accounts Department, and presently she is working as OA Gr.I in the office of Sr. Accounts Officer. So, her representations are rightly rejected by the respondents and this petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned order.

7. This is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner is working as OA Gr. I in the respondent company and it is also not disputed that the petitioner is an holder of (M.A. in Psychology) and she also sought permission from the respondent authorities for pursuing Ph.D in clinical psychology at Pt. Ravishankar University, Raipur and after awarded Doctorate, the petitioner filed an application for advance increment as per circular dated 14.03.1984 issued by erstwhile (MPEB) for grant of one/two advance increments, but her representations were dismissed by the competent authority of respondents vide order dated 07.04.2015 (Annexure P/01) and 30.03.2015 (Annexure P/02).

8. Circular dated 14.03.1984 issued by erstwhile (MPEB) is held as under:- 12 “The Board is pleased to delegate the powers to the Secretary for grant of one/two advance increments to the employees, who obtain Post Graduate Diploma/Post Graduate Degree qualifications in Engineering or pass the final examination of I.C.W.A. or acquire the qualification of Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Phil., D.Litt. after fulfilling the specified conditions, provided the subject related to activities of the Board.”

9. The impugned orders Annexure P/01 and Annexure P/02 are held as under (Page 16 & Page 17) Annexure P/01 छ्ቈीसगढ़ राज्य वि(cid:12)्ቕुत वि(cid:12)तरण कं पनी मया(cid:22)वि(cid:23)त (छ.रा.वि(cid:12).मं. की एक उ्ቈर(cid:12)त(cid:27) कं पनी) ( छ्ቈीसगढ शासन का उप्ቅम) CIN : U40108CT2003SGC015822 काया(cid:22)लय काय(cid:22)पालक विन(cid:23)ेशक (मा.सं.) ्ቅमांक 02-11/I(ii)/ उ्ሴ शिश्ቌा/221 रायपुर, वि(cid:23)नांक 07.04.2015 ्ቚतित, ्ቛारा डॉ. हेमलता पाठक तित(cid:12)ारी, काया(cid:22)लय सहायक ्ቦेणी-(cid:23)ो (cid:12)रिर्቗ लेखाति0कारी-एक छ.रा.वि(cid:12).वि(cid:12).कं .मया(cid:22)., रायपुर वि(cid:12)षयः- उ्ሴ शिश्ቌा उपाति0 पी.एच.डी. अቌኌ6त करने के उपरांत वि(cid:23)नांक 13.08.2014 से (cid:23)ो अवि7म (cid:12)ेतन (cid:12)ृति9 स्(cid:12)ीकृ त विकए 6ाने बाबत्। सं(cid:23)्ቝ(cid:22)ः- आपका अभ्या(cid:12)े(cid:23)न वि(cid:23)नांक 23.03.2015। वि(cid:12)षयांतग(cid:22)त ्ቚबं0 विन(cid:23)ेशक, छ.स.वि(cid:12).वि(cid:12).कं .मया(cid:22). को संबोति0त आपके सं(cid:23)ቝኌ्ቝत अभ्या(cid:12)े(cid:23)न वि(cid:23)नांक 23.03.2015 के संबं0 में अ(cid:12)गत कराया 6ाता है विक आपके ्ቛारा अቌኌ6त पी.एच.डी. उपाति0 की वि(cid:12)षय(cid:12)स्तु कं पनी के विनयमानुसार कं पनी के वि्ቅयाकलापों से संबंति0त नहीं होने के कारण आपको अवि7म (cid:12)ेतन (cid:12)ृति9 की पा्ቔता नहीं है। Sd/- काय(cid:22)पालक विन(cid:23)Gशक (मा.सं.) छ.रा.वि(cid:12).वि(cid:12).क.मया(cid:22)., रायपुर 13 Annexure P/02 छ्ቈीसगढ़ राज्य वि(cid:12)्ቕुत वि(cid:12)तरण कम्पनी मया(cid:22)वि(cid:23)त रायपुर (छ.ग. शासन का एक उप्ቅम) (छ.रा.वि(cid:12).म. की एक उ्ቈर(cid:12)त(cid:27) कं पनी) CIN:U40108CT2003SGC015822 काया(cid:22). (cid:12)रिर्቗ लेखाति0कारी- एक.छ.रा.वि(cid:12).वि(cid:12).कं .मया(cid:22)., रायपुर Email ID : rao1.cspdcl@gmail.com ्ቅमांकः 051-9700/स्था.-82/1180 रायपुर, वि(cid:23)नांक 30.03.2015 ्ቚतित, डॉ. हेमलता तित(cid:12)ारी पाठक, काया(cid:22). राहा. ्ቦेणी-(cid:23)ो, काया(cid:22) (cid:12)रिर्቗ लेखाति0कारी-एक, छ.रा.वि(cid:12).वि(cid:12).क. मया(cid:22)वि(cid:23)त, रायपुर। वि(cid:12)षयः- अቌኌ6त पी.एच.डी. उपाति0 के फलस्(cid:12)रूप (cid:23)ो अवि7म (cid:12)ेतन (cid:12)ृति9 के संबं0 में। सं(cid:23)्ቝ(cid:22): 1. काय(cid:22)पालक विन(cid:23)ेशक (मा...रा.वि(cid:12).वि(cid:12).क. वि(cid:23)नांक 19.03.2015. शिश./100 गया(cid:22) रायपुर के प्ቔ ्ቅमांक 02-11/1(ii)/स्था. /उ. काय(cid:22)पालक विन(cid:23)ेशक (रा.्ቌे.), रायपुर पकन प्ቔ ्ቅमांक 10-01/स्था./ ०००० वि(cid:23)नांक

2. 26.03.2015.

3. आपका आ(cid:12)े(cid:23)न वि(cid:23)नांक 16.09.2014. ----00---- आपके ्ቛारा ्ቚस्तुत सं(cid:23)ቝኌ्ቝत कमांक-3 के संबं0 में सूतिचत विकया 6ाता है विक पू(cid:12)(cid:22)(cid:12)त(cid:27) वि(cid:12)्ቕुत मण्डल का आ(cid:23)ेश कमांक 01-05/I/I-156(A)/49 वि(cid:23)नांक 14.03.1984 के अनुसार अቌኌ6त पी.एच.डी./ डी.एस.सी/डी. विफल/डी. लिलट. उपाति0 0ारक को एक/ (cid:23)ो अवि7म (cid:12)ेतन (cid:12)ृति9 की स्(cid:12)ीकृ तित हेतु आ(cid:23)ेश में (cid:12)ቝኌणतानुसार अቌኌ6त उपाति0 की वि(cid:12)षय(cid:12)स्तु मंडल/ कं पनी के काय(cid:22)कलापों से संबंति0त होना चाविहए। आपके ्ቛारा अቌኌ6त उपाति0 ्ቌे्ቔान्तग(cid:22)त काय(cid:22)- कलापों में उपयोगी नहीं है ए(cid:12)ं शविR ्ቚत्यायो6न पुቜኌस्तका के पृ्቗ कमांक 79. सरल कमांक 7.3.2 में उ्ቤेलिखत शतV की पूቔኌत नहीं करती है। इसलिलए आपको अवि7म (cid:12)ेतन (cid:12)ृति9 की पा्ቔता नहीं है। Sd/- (cid:12)रिर्቗ विनखाविनकारी- एक छ.रा.वि(cid:12).वि(cid:12).क. मया(cid:22). रायपुर

10. The petitioner filed additional document A and copy of orders dated

04.03.2015, 28.04.2018, 07.08.2018 and 06.07.2019 and document B 14 order dated 19.06.2024 which shows that the respondent authority directed the petitioner to provide training to employees of respondent department and document B is order dated 19.06.2024 and by this order the respondent authority allowed the increment of other employees for obtaining degree.

11. The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Secretary and Anr. Vs. Dr. Navneet Dhagat passed in WA No. 222 of 2011 vide order dated 12.08.2014 observed as under :- “Respondent is working as Office Assistant Grade-I in appellants’ employment. He with due approval and permission of the competent authority, took admission to pursue studies for the degree of Doctor of philosophy in the faculty of Arts in Hindi in the Dr. Harisingh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar. The University after appreciating the work of respondent awarded him a degree of Doctorate of Philosophy (Hindi) in the year 1994. As per the policy of the appellants, the employees who did Post graduation bring the course of employment were entitled for the benefit of two advance increments. The respondent, therefore, applied for the said benefit but it was denied on the ground that Doctorate of Philosophy in the faculty of Arts (Hindi) did not help him in his working. Aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition(s) No. 2665/2003, which the learned Single Judge has allowed by the impugned order. The operative part of the order reads as under:- Keeping in view the aforesaid grievance, facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the respondent/Board has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of increment in a manner which cannot be approved of by this Court. From the circulars filed by the petitioner as Annexure -J/4 issued by the Board on various dates between 1st January, 1978 to 30th June, 1978, it is clearly stipulated that the use of Hindi which is the national language should be encouraged and directions have been issued for issuing telegrams and other messages in Hindi. The circulars indicate that the Board has propagated and encouraged 15 the employees to work in Hindi, preparing notesheets and documents in Hindi for the official use and it cannot be said that the aforesaid qualification of the petitioner is not useful. Accordingly, finding the respondents to have rejected the claim of the petitioner on improper consideration and finding the petitioner to have obtained a Doctorate in Philosophy in Hindi which is useful for his daily discharge of official duties, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned rejecting the claim of the petitioner are quashed and respondents are directed to grant two advance increments to the petitioner with effect from the date of his entitlement in accordance with the circulars and policies of the Board and grant consequential pay fixation and monetary benefits with effect from the date of his entitlement till payment. Petition stands allowed and diposed of with the aforesaid. It is also to be noted that the post of Assistant Grade-I on which respondent is working requires preparation of notesheets and other office work in Hindi. Therefore, the expert knowledge in Hindi is an added qualification and it will surely improve the quality of office work. After hearing the counsel for appellants, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order is well-founded and unassailable.

12. In the light of above Writ Petition, the petitioner also awarded Ph.D in her subject which is titled as “Life Satisfaction in relation to Alexithymia Borderline Personality Disorder and Marital Status of Middle Aged People”. It is clear that the subject in which the petitioner is granted the degree of doctorate of philosophy itself indicates that the subject was related to borderline personality disorder of middle aged people. The subject is related to social conditions of worker and it is also vivid that the respondent directed the petitioner for training for its workers in time to time, therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of one/two advance increments in terms of policy as enumerated in the order dated 14.03.1984.

13. As an upshot, this petition is allowed and the impugned orders 16 (Annexure P/01 & Annexure P/02) rejecting the claim of the petitioner are hereby quashed and respondents are directed to grant one/two advance increments to the petitioner w.e.f the date of her entitlement in accordance with the circular dated 14.03.1984 and policies of the Board and grant consequential pay fixation and monetary benefits w.e.f. the date of her entitlement till payment and this exercise must be completed within 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. Thus, the petition stands allowed with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge U.K. Raju