CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.11.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALANW.P.No.6060 of 2004B.Jayakumar... Petitionervs.1.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL)rep. By its Chairman cum Managing Director,No.20, Asoka Road,New Delhi - 110 001.2.The Chief General Manager,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL)Tamil Nadu Circle,Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.3.The Assistant General Manager (R & G)Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL)Tamil Nadu Circle,Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writ of ceriorarified mandamus calling forthe records in RET/31-36/99 on the file of the second respondent and quashthe order dated 17.03.2003 made therein and consequently direct the firstrespondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in Group IIIcategory or any post equivalent thereto with all service benefits w.e.f.05.11.1999.For Petitioner:Mr.D.SaravananFor Respondents:Mr.S.Velusamy, ACGSCO R D E RThis writ petition has been filed praying to call for the records inRET/31-36/99 on the file of the second respondent and quash the orderdated 17.03.2003 made therein and consequently direct the first respondentto appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in Group III categoryor any post equivalent thereto with all service benefits w.e.f. 05.11.1999. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition areas follows :(i)The petitioner's father, while working as Senior SectionSupervisor (S.S.S.) in Central Telegraph Office, Chennai 600 001,(now known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), a Government ofIndia Enterprise) suddenly died intestate of brain stroke, leavingbehind the petitioner, his mother and two other sons. He had twoand a half years of service to his credit at the time of his death.Since he died while he was in service and that one of therepresentatives of the family members being eligible for a job in theDepartment, the petitioner, who is an under graduate in Science, wasnominated by the family members for the same and his mother maderepresentations on 05.11.1998 and 13.11.1998 nominating thepetitioner for employment, in response to which the ChiefSuperintendent, Central Telegraph Office, Chennai 600 001, sent arequirement list dated 18.11.1998. The requirement list was dulycomplied with by the petitioner as early as on 28.11.1998 as per thenorms prescribed in Appendix-2 of CCS (Pension) Rules. However, hewas declined the offer of employment on untenable grounds through acommunication dated 20.08.1999 from the Chief General Manager,Telecommunications, who is the second respondent herein.(ii)The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the secondrespondent vide letter dated 03.11.1999 with necessary enclosuresexplaining the actual facts. He clarified that his elder brother isan employee only in a Housing Finance Company named as INDBANKHousing Ltd., which was running under heavy loss since 1998 and thatthe same is neither a private sector nor a public sector Bank; he isliving separately in a far-away place at Pudukottai along with hiswife and children and further he is taking care of his paternalgrandmother and that a sum of Rs.500/- per month is being paid to himfrom the monthly pension received by them on account of his father'sdeath; that his wife is only a house-wife and there is no chance ofany financial support from his elder brother to his family.(iii)In the detailed reply, the petitioner further clarifiedthat his younger brother was studying 3rd year B.E. without anyscholarship either from the Government or from any Trust and that hiseducation requires considerable expenditure which was being met andtaken care of by the petitioner. He detailed that the plot measuring1,800 sq. ft. was not owned by the petitioner as of that day as therewas a balance of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu HousingBoard and that a sum of Rs.46,000/- was already borrowed by hisfather to be paid as advance for this purpose. The petitionerfurther clarified that they did not own the house and they werestaying only in rented house in Villivakkam, paying a rent ofRs.2,000/- per month. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iv)The petitioner submitted that the amount received asterminal benefits was used for funeral expenses of his father andcertain amount had to be spent as Medical expenses for his mother,who suffered from various ailments due to the sudden demise of hisfather. He further submitted that he had spent considerable sum forthe treatment given to his father, when he suffered Cerebral attack,due to which he was admitted in medicare centre, Washermanpet. Itwas also clarified by the petitioner that since proper nomination wasnot given by his father during his lifetime, 50% of GPF was paid tohis grandmother, Mrs.Muthammal and therefore, his family members areliving in an indingent condition. (v)For the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the ChiefGeneral Manager, Telecommunications, Chennai 600 002 sent a replystating that the request of the petitioner has not been acceded to.Hence, the petitioner submitted another representation on 01.01.2001to the Director General (Estt.), the first respondent herein,detailing all the aspects but there was no positive response. Onceagain, the peittioner made a representation on 11.04.2001 to theChairman-cum-Managing Director of the first respondent for which toothere was no response. For the fourth time, the petitioner sent arepresentation to the second respondent, for which he received acommunication on 03.04.2002, to produce certain documents which wereduly complied with by him on 09.04.2002. Even after compliance ofall requirements by the petitioner, there was no response from therespondents. Thereafter, the petitioner again sent a representationon 19.02.2003 to the second respondent, for which he received acommunication dated 17.03.2003, rejecting his request reiterating thevery same reasons. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of the secondrespondent, the petitioner has approached this Court for the reliefas stated above.3.The Deputy General Manager (Admn) in the Office of the secondrespondent in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,has stated that compassionate ground appointments are given on verifyingthe indigent condition of the family of the deceased employees due totheir sudden demise, after being duly recommended by the HPC constitutedfor this purpose and in the case of the petitioner, the Department hasconducted Spot Verification and found that the family is not in anindingent situation based on the following facts.(a)The family is receiving Rs.3325 + D.A. and has received Rs.4,12,800/- as Departmental benefits.(b)Age of the applicant(c)Working status of the elder son4.The respondents denied the averments of the petitioner that hiselder brother is working in the Housing Finance Company, viz., IndBankHousing Ltd., was running under heavy loss. According to the respondents,the reason given by the Department for rejecting the case of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner is correct as per the order in O.M.No.14014/6/94 Est(D), dated09.10.1998. The respondents denied the statement of the petitioner thatthe terminal benefits received were not used to settle the family dues.In the petitioner's letter dated 03.11.1999, it is stated that they hadspent Rs.35,000/- towards mother's treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards father'streatment, Rs.45,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.75,000/- towards 1stbrother's marriage expenses. It is the case of the respondents that only50% of the terminal benefits is being utilised by the petitioner. 5.Citing the Supreme Court judgment dated 28.02.1995 in the case ofLife Insurance Corporation of India vs. Mrs.Asha Ramachandran Ambedkar andothers (JT 1994 (2) SC 183), the respondents have contended that the HighCourts and Administrative Tribunals cannot give direction for appointmentof a person on compassionate ground, but can merely direct considerationof the claim of such an appointment. Compassionate ground appointment isoffered to the dependent of the deceased employee on humanitarian groundsafter assessing the financial status and it cannot be used amachinery/medium for getting employment. 6.The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter filedby the respondents, in which he has furnished the details of persons, whowere appointed on compassionate grounds by the respondents. Therespondents filed an additional counter affidavit denying the averments ofthe petitioner and detailing the grounds of compassionate appointments ofthe persons pointed out by the petitioner. 7.Heard Mr.D.Saravanan, learned Counsel for the petitioner andMr.S.Velusamy, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, appearingfor the respondents.8.Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that thesecond respondent has acted merely on presumptions and assumptions andconsequently erred in denying appointment to the petitioner oncompassionate grounds; the respondents ought to have applied their mind tothe scheme which has the object to appoint on compassionate ground, adependant family member of a Government Servant dying in harness wholeaves his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, so as torelieve the family from financial destitution and to get over theemergency. 9.It was the further contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that the respondents ought to have considered the explanationof the petitioner that the first son of the deceased was working only in afinance company and that by an order dated 09.07.2003, he has lost hisjob; the reasoning of the second respondent that the third son wasstudying B.E., 3rd year, and therefore the family of the petitioner is notin an indigent condition is totally unsustainable in law and in any eventit is improper to expect one to discontinue the studies after the lifetimeof his father. He also contended that the second respondent failed to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ take into consideration the fact that the entire terminal benefits was notreceived by them alone as 50 per cent of the GPF was distributed to thepetitioner's paternal grandmother. Learned counsel also contended thatthe reason assigned by the second respondent that the petitioner is aged32 years is totally not tenable in law and the fact remains that thepetitioner was aged only 28 years when the first application was made.10.Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentionshas relied on the following judgments relevant portions of which areextracted hereunder:(i)2005 (1) LLJ 277 in the case of Subhash Chandra Yadav vs. StateBank of India and another, the High Court of Allahabad has held as follows:"7.Sri Vipin Sinha, learned Counsel for S.B.I., hasstated that the two sons of the deceased are employed. In hisargument, he has relied on the observations in the order ofChief General Manager dated June 2, 2001 that two elder sons areearning members. In our opinion, this is a very vagueobservation, if it is claimed that a person is employedsomewhere, then the details must be given as to in whichparticular establishment he is employed and in what capacity andhow much he is earning etc. If a mere vague allegation is madethat a person is employed and in what capacity, then hisapplication for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules,can always be rejected by making such vague assertion. Nodetails have been given even till today, as to where the 2 eldersons are said to be employed. Hence, we cannot accept thisbaseless assertion."(ii)In (2005) 10 SCC 289 in the case of Govind Prakash Verma vs. LifeInsurance Corporation of India and others, the Honourable Supreme Courthas held as follows :"6.In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for thedepartmental authorities and the learned Single Judge to takeinto consideration the amount which was being paid as familypension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according tothe appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amountspaid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. Thescheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whateveris admissible to the legal representatives of the deceasedemployee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot berefused on the ground that any member of the family received theamounts admissble under the Rules. So far as the question ofgainful employment of the elder brother is concerned, we findthat it had been given out that he has been engaged incultivation. We hardly find that is could be considered asgainful employment if the family owns a piece of land and one ofthe members of the family cultivates the field. This statementis said to have been contradicted when it is said that the elderbrother had stated that he works as a painter. This would not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ necessarily be a contradiction much less leading to theinference drawn that he was gainfully employed somewhere as apainter. He might be working in his field and migh casually begetting work as a painter also. Nothing has been indicated inthe enquiry report as to where he was employed as a regularpainter. The other aspects, on which the officer was requiredto make enquiries, have been conveniently omitted and not awhisper is found in the report submitted by the officer. In theabove circumstances, in our view, the orders passed by the HighCourt are not sustainable. The respondents have wrongly refusedcompassionate apppointment to the appellant. The inference ofgainful employment of the elder brother could not be acted upon.The terminal benefits received by the widow and the familypension could not be taken into account."(iii)The High Court of Allahabad in 2005 (I) LLJ 796 in the caseof Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and others vs. Durgesh KumarTiwari, has held as follows :"4.The claim of the respondent in this appeal wasrejected by the Bank by order dated April 9, 1999 on the groundthat the financial condition of the family appeared to be sound(vide Annexure-CA-1 to the writ petition). While rejecting thecase of the writ petitioner, hypothetical source of income wastaken into consideration, but it was not considered that thesaving was spent initially for treatment of the father of thewrit petitioner, and the meagre retirement benefits on themarriage of the daughter and treatment of the mother. 9.In Ajay Kumar Shevdu vs. Chief Security Commissioner2004 (2) UPLBEC 1503, this Court held that if the applicationfor compassionate appointment was filed within time then merelybecause the applicant was unnecessarily dragged from pillar topost for getting employment and this caused that delay he shouldnot be denied the appointment. We agree with this view. "11.On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondentssubmitted that compassionate ground appointments are given on verifyingthe indigent condition of the family of the deceased employees due to thesudden demise of the employee and in the case of the petitioner, theDepartment has conducted Spot Verification and found that his family isnot in an indigent circumstance. Learned counsel contended that when thepetitioner's brother is well placed in a Bank and the deceased employee'sfamily has been enjoying the terminal benefits and a good amount aspension, the averment of the petitioner that his family is in an indigentcondition is unbelievable and offering compassionate appointment as amatter of course, irrespective of the financial condition of the family ofthe deceased Government Servant is legally impermissible. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for therespondents relied on the following decisions :(i)In 2005 (1) ALSLJ SC 30 in the case of Pubjab National Bank andothers vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, the Honourable Supreme Court has held asfollows:"8.One other thing which needs to be considered iswhether the retiral benefits are to be taken into considerationwhile dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment. TheHigh Court was of the view that the same was not be to takeninto consideration. The view is contrary is what had been heldrecently in The General (D & P.B.) & Others vs. Kunti Tiwary andanother, Civil Appeal 126 of 2004 disposed of on 05.01.2004. Itwas categorically held that the amounts have to be taken intoconsideration. In the instant case, there was a scheme called'Scheme for Employment of the Dependants of the Employee who diewhile in the service of the Bank Service on CompassionateGrounds' (in short the 'Scheme') operating in the appellant No.1Bank which categorically provides as follows :"Financial condition of the Family :The dependents of an employee dying in harness may beconsidered for compassionate appointment provided the family iswithout sufficient means of livelihood, specifically keeping inview the following :(a)Family pension;(b)Gratuity amount received;(c)Employee's/Employer's contribution to PF;(d)Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund;(e)Proceeds of LIC Policy and other investments of the deceasedemployee;(f)Income for family from other sources;(g)Employment of other family members;(h)Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc."..."(ii)The Supreme Court in (2006) 7 SCC 350 in the case of Union Bankof India and others vs. M.T.Latheesh, has held as follows :"37.It is also settled law that the specially constitutedauthorities in the rules or regulations like the competentauthority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases onfacts of the case and their objective finding arrived on theappreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed. LearnedSingle Judge and the Division Bench by directing appointment hasfettered the discretion of the appointing and selectingauthorities. The Bank had considered the application of therespondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bankfor such appointment. After that even though the Bank found therespondent ineligible for appointment to its service, the HighCourt has found him eligible and has ordered his appointment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This is against the law laid down by this Court. It is settledlaw that the principles regarding compassionate appointment thatcompassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule,the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situationsand circumstance s existing in granting appointment and guidingfactors should be financial condition of the family. Therespondent is not entitled to claim relief under the new Schemebecause the financial status of the family is much above thecriterion fixed in the new Scheme."13.I have given due consideration to the arguments made by thelearned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents as well and alsothe judgments relied on by them in support of their arguments.14.Admittedly, the petitioner's father, while working as SeniorSection Supervisor at BSNL, suddenly died intestate of brain strokeleaving behind the petitioner, his mother and his two other sons. Sincehe died while he was in service, one of the family members being eligiblefor a job in the department, the petitioner was nominated by the familymembers. Accordingly, the petitioner's mother nominated him and as per theprocedure contemplated, the petitioner applied on 28.11.198 and accordingto norms prescribed in Annexure II of Central Civil Service (pension)Rules, it was declined by the second respondent vide communication dated20.08.1999. Thereafter, on 03.11.1999, he replied to him with necessaryenclosures explaining the actual facts clarifying that his elder brotheris employed, married and settled separately. The petitioner had alsobrought to the notice of the respondents the indigent circumstances inwhich they are living stating that:(i) his elder brother who is married and living separatelyat Pudukkottai, is employed in a company incurring losses sinceApril 1998 and he is not of any support to their family;(ii) from the monthly pension, a sum of Rs.500/- is beingpaid to the paternal grandmother who is under the care andcustody of his elder brother;(iii) the younger brother was studying III year B.E.without any scholarship either from the Government or from anyTrust and his education requires considerable expenditure whichwas being met and taken care of by the petitioner;(iv) the plot allotted by T.N.H.B. measuring 1,800 sq. ft.was not owned by the petitioner as there was a balance of Rs.1lakh to be paid to T.N.H.B. and a sum of Rs.46,000/- had alreadybeen borrowed by his father to be paid as advance; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v)his father's terminal benefits were utilised forvarious purposes, viz., to treat his father who was down bycerebral attack, to treat his ailing mother, for meeting certainexpenditure incurred by his father; and(vi)since his father had not given proper nomination duringhis lifetime 50% of the General Profident Fund was paid to hisgrand mother15.It is also seen that the petitioner has complied with therequirements such as production of relevant documents, etc. as per theprocedure contemplated for the purpose of appointment under compassionateground.Needless to say, the overall financial condition of thepetitioner's family and the surrounding circumstancse need to be lookedinto while considering the case of a compassionate appointment.16.While deciding the case on hand, it would be worthwhile to referto the impugned order passed by the second respondent and the relevantportion for consideration reads thus:"The Government servant, a SSS expired on 30.10.1998 at theage of 57 years survived by his mother, wife and 3 sons. Theelder son is employed in Ind Bank Housing Ltd. and getting asalary of Rs.4,498/- per month. He, however is married and saidto be living separately. The applicant is 32 years of age. Thefamily pension is Rs.4,821/- per month and other terminalbenefits were Rs.4,16,125/- only. Keeping in view the overallaspects of the case, i.e. the family pension, terminal benefits,elder son working status and the age of the applicant, thecommittee does not find the family living in indigent conditionand rejected the request."17.From a reading of the above impugned order, it can be seen thatthe reasoning given by the second respondent for rejecting thepetitioner's claim of compassionate appointment is three-fold which is asunder:a.Employment of the elder son of the deceased in IndbankHousing and his salary of Rs.4,498/-.b.Family pension of Rs.4,821/- per month received by thepetitioner's familyc.Terminal benefits of Rs.4,16,125/- received by thepetitioner's family.18.As far as the first reason assigned by the second respondent isconcerned, i.e. the employment of the elder son of the deceased, thesecond respondent himself has admitted that the petitioner's elder brotheris drawing a salary of Rs.4,498/-, married and living separately with his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ wife and children. When such is the case, one cannot expect him tocontribute to the petitioner's family and that too when his livelihooditself is at stake since the company where he was employed was not doingwell and this is evident from the termination order of the petitioner'sbrother which specifically states that it has not been running well since1998. Therefore, the first reason assigned by the second respondent soundex facie incorrect.19.Coming to the second resason cited in the impugned order that thepetitioner's family is receiving family pension of Rs.4,821/-, admittedly,the petitioner's father did not give proper nomination during his lifetimeand hence, his mother has been getting Rs.500/- from the pensionarybenefits in addition to 50% of the General Provident Fund which she hasreceived. Secondly, engineering education undergone by the petitioner'syounger brother, without any sort of scholarship or aid from any sourcewhatsoever, had to be taken care of and it could not have beendiscontinued abruptly just because his father had died. In addition tothese, the petitioner's family has also to look after its basicrequirements, viz., food, clothing and shelter, particularly in thepresent days' cost of living. While considering these aspects, I am ofthe considered view that the second reasoning stated in the impugned ordercannot be a just and fair ground to reject the petitioner's case.20.Lastly, with regard to the third reasoning assigned in theimpugned order that the petitioner's family has received terminal benefitsof Rs.4,16,125/-, it is the case of the respondents that the petitionerhas spent only Rs.35,000/- towards his mother's treatment, Rs.10,000/-towards his father's treatment, Rs.45,000/- towards funeral expenses andRs.75,000/- towards his elder brother's marriage expenses and thus, thepetitioner's family had spent only 50% of the terminal benefits and thebalance 50% is still available for their survival. On the other hand, thepetitioner's case is that his father underwent treatment for the cerebralattack suffered by him and a considerable expenditure was incurred for histreatment but the amount of Rs.10,000/- which the respondents claim tohave been spent for treating cerebral attack is too meagre. Thepetitioner's case in this regard certainly deserves consideration as anailment such as cerebral attack may not be treated for a meagre sum ofRs.10,000/- and that too in a private hospital and as such, the thirdreasoning also assigned by the second respondent does not sound valid forrejection the petitioner's claim of compassionate appointment. Innutshell, it has to be naturally concluded that the second respondent isnot correct in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's family isnot living in an indigent circumstance.21.In this context, it would be worth-referring to a judgment of theSupreme Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976 in the case of Sushma Gosainand others vs. Union of India and others, wherein while dealing with asimilar circumstance, it was held that the purpose of providingappointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ death of the bread earner in the family; such appointment should,therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress; it isimproper to keep such case pending for years and if there is no suitablepost for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodatethe applicant.22.Further, in its judgment reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 in the case ofGovind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others,the Supreme Court has categorically held that the matter of gainfulemployment of an elder brother cannnot be acted upon and the terminalbenefits received by the widow and the family pension received by thefamily of the deceased cannnot be taken into account while decidingmatters pertaining to compassionate appointment. But, it should be saidthat the respondents, in the instant case, have taken into account thepensionary benefits, terminal benefits and the gainful employment of thepetitioner's elder brother while negativing the petitioner's legitimateclaim, which in my opinion goes against the very ruling of the SupremeCourt in the case referred to above which is squarely applicable to thecase on hand. Therefore, the order suffers from the legal inifirmitiesand the total non-application of mind to assess the real circumstances ofthe bereaved family and their indigent circumstances.23.In the Punjab National Bank case relied on by the respondents,the Supreme Court has only observed that the dependants of an employeedying in harness may be considered for compassionate appointment providedthe family is without sufficient mode of livelihood specifically keepingin view the family pension, Gratuity and General Provident Fund. But, inthe instant case, as already seen, only a small portion of the terminalbenefits is left and even a certain sum is shared by the mother of thedeceased who is staying with the petitioner's brother.24.As regards the reliance made by the counsel for the respondentson M.T.Latheesh case, the Supreme Court has held that the High Courtshould not have interfered in the matter of compassionate appointment whenthe appellant-bank had considered the applicant's case in terms of thestatutory scheme. But, in the case on hand, the second respondent hasrejected the petitioner's case not based on any statutory scheme but onlyby wrongly coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's family is not inan indigent condition and on that count, this judgment also isdistinguishable on facts.25.In view of the discussion made above and bearing in mind theaspect that the object of providing compassionate appointment is tomitigate the sufferings of the bereaved family which is to be consideredin the light of the above settled principles and in a beneficial manner,the impugned order which suffers from total non-application of mind andnon-consideration of material records, is set aside; the matter isremitted to the respondents and the respondents are directed to considerthe petitioner's case afresh, by taking note of the principles laid down https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain case and Govind Prakash Varma casein particular and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order.With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.abeTo1.The Chairman cum Managing DirectorBharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL)No.20, Asoka RoadNew Delhi - 110 0012.The Chief General ManagerBharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL)Tamil Nadu CircleAnna Salai, Chennai 600 0023.The Assistant General Manager (R & G)Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL)Tamil Nadu CircleAnna Salai, Chennai 600 002.+ 1 CC To Mr. D.Saravanan, Advocate SR NO.66328+ 1 CC To Mr. M.S.Velusamy, Advocate SR NO.66504W.P.No.6060 of 2004vg[co]gp/13.11.