Sri Ratnakar Sahoo v. State of Odisha and Another
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022 & W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022 In the matter of the applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------- W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022 Sri Ratnakar Sahoo … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha and Another … Opposite parties For Petitioner … M/s. Sameer Kumar Das & N. Jena For Opposite Parties … Mr. A. Behera, Additional Standing Counsel W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022 Sri Biren Kumar Biswal … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha and Another … Opposite parties For Petitioner … M/s. Sameer Kumar Das & N. Jena For Opposite Parties … Mr. A. Behera, Additional Standing Counsel -------------- // 2 // PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Date of hearing : 21.12.2022 Date of judgment : 13.01.2023 A.K. Mohapatra, J. Both the above noted writ petitions involved similar set of facts and this Court is required to adjudicate an identical issue involved in both the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and the same is being
Decision
disposed of by the following common order. W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-5 and further to direct the Opposite Parties to re-fix his pay in 3rd RACP in Level-10 of the pay matrix as per ORSP Rules, 2017 and in continuance of Annexure-4 to grant all consequential benefits flowing from it with all arrears w.e.f. 04.10.2020 within a stipulated period of time. 3. The factual background in which the present writ petition has been filed, in a nutshell, is that the Petitioner having been duly selected was appointed as a Junior Grade Typist in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar on 24.09.1990. Accordingly, // 3 // the Petitioner joined in service on 04.10.1990. In course of his employment, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Grade Typist. While he was continuing as such, the Government of Odisha introduced a scheme, i.e., Assured Career Progression (ACP) for Government Employees for financial upgradation on completion of 15, 25 and 30 years of service. Such provision was substituted by Finance Department Resolution dated 06.02.2013 by converting the aforesaid ACP to RACP Scheme allowing such benefits on completion of 10, 20, 30 years of service. 4. The Finance Department Resolution dated 06.02.2013 provides that the State Government employees are to get RACP benefits, i.e., equivalent to the pay available to the next higher pay in their promotional hierarchy, if the employee do not get any promotion to the promotional post. So far the Senior Grade Typists are concerned, the next promotional post is to the post of Senior Assistant as per the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 1999 which was introduced vide Government of Odisha in G.A. Department Notification dated 26.06.1999. // 4 // 5. In view of the above noted resolution of the Finance Department dated 06.02.2013, the Petitioner is entitled to get his 2nd RACP in the promotional grade of Senior Assistant and, accordingly, his pay was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- with financial benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2013. A copy of the Office Order dated 31.05.2014 allowing the 2nd RACP benefit to the Petitioner has also been annexed to the writ petition. 6. While the Petitioner continuing in service, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal was abolished w.e.f. 02.08.2019 and the employees were deputed to various other department of the Government and some of them were also permanently absorbed in such department of the State Government. However, the Petitioner along with some other employees were allowed to continue in the Tribunal in order to carry out the residual work like transferring the records to this Court along with other administrative work. After abolition of the Tribunal, the power of the Registrar of the Tribunal was vested in a Nodal Officer, who happens to be an official of the Odisha Administrative Service Cadre. The aforesaid Nodal Officer vide his order No.3365 dated 16.11.2021 directed to reduce/revise the pay of the Petitioner in the 2nd RACP and to allow him the scale of // 5 // pay of Rs.5,200-20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The reason for such decision as has been assigned is that the Screening Committee has taken such a decision and, therefore, the excess amount which has been paid to the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2013 is to be recovered from his salary. Accordingly, challenging the order dated 16.11.2021 under which the salary has been re-fixed and the excess payment has been directed to be recovered from the salary of the Petitioner has been assailed in the present writ petition. 7. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure- 5 is erroneous and illegal and the same is against the Rules of 1999 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He further contended that the Petitioner was rightly allowed the 2nd RACP with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- under the Finance Department Resolution 2013. The conduct of the Nodal Officer in reverting the Petitioner to a lower scale of pay all of a sudden without providing any opportunity to show cause is per se illegal, according to Mr. Das. Further, the recovery sought to be made is in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC // 6 // 334. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Das further submits that the benefit already accrued in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the rules should not have been taken away abruptly and consequential order for recovery should not have been passed after 7 years. It is further contended that such conduct of the authorities has seriously jeopardized the life and livelihood of the Petitioner and eventually the service conditions have been altered. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on the basis of the Finance Department Resolution of the Year 2013, the Petitioner is eligible for 3rd RACP benefits w.e.f. 4.10.2020 in the next higher Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-. But most unfortunately, the Opposite Party No.2 has directed the Petitioner to give his option to come down to Level-8 of the pay matrix under ORSP Rules, 2017, although the same is not his actual entitlement. On the contrary, the Petitioner is entitled to the Grade Pay of the P.B.-2 in Level-10 of the Pay Matrix. Although the Petitioner approached the Nodal Officer with request to reconsider his decision, the Nodal Officer verbally informed that the decision of the Screening Committee cannot be changed. In the said context, Mr. Das further submitted that there exists no statutory Screening Committee in the Administrative // 7 // Tribunal Rules, 1999 as of now. He further contended that the recovery sought to be made pursuant to the decision of such Screening Committee is completely in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). Accordingly, it was prayed that the order under Annexure-5 be quashed. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties wherein it has been pleaded that the Petitioner entered into the Government service as Junior Grade Typist on 4.10.1990 in the time scale of pay of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 under the ORSP Rules, 1989 (equivalent to 6th Pay GP of Rs.1900/- or 7th Pay at Level-4). Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the rank of Senior Grade Typist only on 16.02.2015. After completion of 15 years of continuous service in the post of Junior Grade Typist in the absence of promotion, he was granted financial upgradation benefit in the shape of TBA in the scale of pay of Rs.3200-85-4900/- under the ORSP Rules, 1998 w.e.f. 04.10.2005 (equivalent of GP of Rs.2000/- as per the ORSP Rules, 2008 under 6th Pay and Level-5 as per the ORSP Rules, 2017 under 7th Pay). Further, referring to the Finance Department Resolution dated 06.02.213, it has been stated that RACP was made applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2013 on completion of 10, 20 and // 8 // 30 years of service in a single cadre in absence of promotion. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that after completion of 20 years of service in the post of Junior Grade Typist as on 03.10.2010, the Screening Committee in its proceeding dated 08.05.2014 found that the Petitioner is eligible for grant of the 1st RACP with benefit of Grade Pay corresponding to Senior Grade Typist and 2nd RACP w.e.f. 01.01.2013. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Screening Committee on 08.05.2014 under Annexure-C/2, 6(six) numbers of Group-C employees of the OAT who were found eligible to get financial upgradation benefits under the RACP Scheme wherein the Petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.4. However, it has also been stated that the pay of the Petitioner was erroneously fixed vide Office Order dated 31.05.2014. Further, in the counter affidavit, it has been narrated in detail as to how the pay has been fixed erroneously. Upon a careful examination of the analysis made in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that for such erroneous calculation, the blame cannot be put on the Petitioner. 11. In the counter affidavit, it has also been averred that by virtue of Resolution No.18861/Gen dated 08.07.2013, all the post in the State // 9 // Government Service have been categorized as Group-A, Group-B, Group-C and Group-D. The post of Junior Grade Typist is coming under the Group-C and at Pay Band-1 of the aforesaid Notification. The Petitioner was continuing in the post of Junior Grade Typist in Group-C post carrying the Scale of Pay of Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay Rs.2400/- as on 01.01.2013 with the benefit of the 2nd RACP benefits extended to him. Further, referring to the gradation list of every cadre of the OAT dated 24.03.2021, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the promotional post of Junior Grade Typist is Senior Grade Typist, both in Group-C and so far Junior Assistant & Store Keeper are concerned, their promotional post is Senior Assistant (Group-B) or Section Officer (Group-B), although both carrying same scale of pay. Therefore, an attempt has been made in the counter affidavit to advance a case that Junior Grade Typist can only be promoted to Senior Grade Typist within that cadre and Junior Assistant to the Post of Senior Assistant within their respective cadre and both the cadres are different. Additionally, it has also been stated that the OAT Rules, 1999 envisages that the post of Senior Assistant shall be filled up by promotion from amongst Junior Assistant or Store Keeper, who have rendered three years of service and must have // 10 // passed the preliminary accounts examination conducted by the Board of Revenue/Madhusudan Institute of Accounts and Finance. However, the proviso appended to the relevant rules envisages that 10% of the vacancies in the Cadre of Senior Assistant in a year shall be filled up from among the Senior Grade Typist/Senior Grade Diarist/Senior Grade Recorder of the OAT who have passed matriculation examination and have rendered 10 years of continuous service as such on the 1st day of January of the recruitment year. In such view of the matter, it has been stated that the fixation of pay of the Petitioner at Rs.9920/- + G.P. Rs.4200/- (PB-2) in the Scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- instead of Rs.9920/- + G.P. Rs.2800/- (P.B.-1) w.e.f 01.01.2013 was incorrect and erroneous. It is further stated that such error was pointed out by Screening Committee in its proceeding dated 21.09.2021. 12. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Parties submitted by referring to the Annexure-J/2 dated 13.02.2015 that the Petitioner was given promotion by the DPC meeting held on 06.02.2015 from the post of Junior Grade Typist to the post of Senior Grade Typist in the scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200/- // 11 // with Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- w.e.f. the date of joining, i.e., 16.02.2015 (F.N.). 13. In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that the Government of Odisha implemented ORSP Rules, 2017 on the basis of the recommendation of 7th Pay Commission and Fitment Committee constituted by the Finance Department w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Since the pay of the Petitioner is to be revised w.e.f. 01.01.2013, his pay was fixed subsequent to introduction of ORSP Rules 2017 is also required to be revised. Further, with the introduction of ORSP Rules, 2017, MACP Scheme has come to effect w.e.f. 01.01.2016, as a result, the RACP Scheme has been ultimately superseded w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Under the MACP Scheme there shall be three upgradation to be counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service in absence of regular promotion. After introduction of the MACP, the Screening Committee in its proceeding dated 21.09.2021 recommended grant of 3rd MACP in Level-08 (as Level-08 is next higher to Level-7 and Level-7 corresponds to Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-, i.e., the Grade Pay attached to Senior Grade Typist) under sub-rule-12 of ORSP Rules, 2017 w.e.f. 04.10.2020 on completion of 30 years of service by the Petitioner as per the Finance Department // 12 // Notification SRO No.414/2017 dated 20.09.2017. Accordingly, the Screening Committee in its proceeding dated 21.09.2021 pointed out the error in fixation of pay made during grant of 2nd RACP. 14. Mr. A. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties argued that since the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 21.9.2021 detected the aforesaid mistake in the scale of pay as well as Grade Pay sanctioned as per the proceeding of the Screening Committee held on 08.05.2014. While granting 2nd RACP, the same was required to be corrected and, accordingly, vide Office Order No.3365 dated 16.11.2021 of the OAT, Bhubaneswar, the 3rd MACP was allowed on completion of 30 years of service and the pay was fixed at Level-8 w.e.f. 04.10.2020 after rectification of the pay scale and Grade Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2013 fixed under the 2nd RACP. 15. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties on the basis of the materials on record further tried to justify the action of the Screening Committee and submitted that an error was committed inadvertently by the Screening Committee and, therefore, on detection of such error by the subsequent Screening Committee, the same has been rectified and, // 13 // accordingly, the scale of pay after grant of benefit of 2nd RACP would be in the scale of pay Rs.5200-20200/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- in P.B.-1 instead of scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in P.B.-2. Therefore, the Screening Committee was justified in recommending for correction of scale of pay as well as Grade Pay. He further submitted that the claim of the Petitioner is absolutely baseless and does not have any legal support. 16. Finally, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties argued that the Petitioner had signed an undertaking as envisaged in the Fifth Schedule of ORSP Rules, 2008 on 16.05.2014 while receiving the benefits of the 2nd RACP towards refund of any excess amount paid. The said undertaking has been quoted in the counter affidavit which says the Petitioner undertakes to refund any excess payment made as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or any excess payment deducted in the light of the discrepancies noticed subsequently either by refunding entire amount to the Government or by adjustment against future payments due and admissible to the Petitioner. In view of such undertaking, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the authorities are justified in their action in making recovery from salary of the // 14 // Petitioner and, as such, no fault can be found with the conduct of the Opposite Parties. 17. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State. In the rejoinder affidavit filed, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has disputed and denied the facts stated in the counter affidavit. Further, it was stated in the counter affidavit that no opportunity to show cause/hearing was given to the Petitioner before taking the decision to reduce the pay scale and to recover the excess payment from the Petitioner. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that had such opportunity given to the Petitioner, he would have explained the position to the authorities how he is entitled to the scale of pay that was granted to him earlier. Further, in the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the judgment in the case of State of Odisha and another v. Bihari Lal Barik and others (W.P.(C) No.2831 of 2016 decided on 27.06.2016) submitted that the conduct of the Opposite Parties are contrary to the law laid down by this Court and affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. 18. Further, learned counsel for the Petitioner went to the extent of arguing that the conduct of the Opposite Parties are in gross violation // 15 // of the law laid down by this Court in Bihari Lal’s case (supra) and submitted that the conduct of the Opposite Parties are contemptuous. It has also been stated in the rejoinder affidavit that in view of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court the TBA should not have been taken into consideration while calculating RACP benefit. 19. Mr. Das further contended that the Petitioner was not granted promotion for quite a long time and as such tried to justify his claim that the Petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant or at least he should have been given the scale of pay attached to the Senior Assistant and, accordingly, RACP benefit should have been worked out. He further argued that once the benefits were granted to the Petitioner, the same should not have been withdrawn and while doing so, the conduct of the Opposite Parties is hit by the doctrine of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel that too after a gap of almost 6 years and without providing an opportunity to show cause to the Petitioner. 20. In his rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the Petitioner has once again reiterated the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra) and submitted that no // 16 // recovery can be made from a person who has been granted benefits wrongly or erroneously. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the decision to recovery the amount from the salary of the Petitioner is grossly erroneous and in violation of the law down by the Hon’le Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih’s case (supra). 21. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has given the instance of one of the similarly placed employees, namely, Sri Nilakantha Dash, who was a Senior Grade Typist of the very same Tribunal and who has been given promotion to the post of Senior Assistant vide Memo No.2194 dated 20.03.2017. The post of Senior Assistant carries the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- and referring to the case of Nilakantha Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner made an attempt to justify the decision of the Screening Committee in granting him the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- while fixing his pay in the 2nd RACP. He has also referred to the cases of similarly situated some other employees, namely, Sri Bira Kishore Singh, Sri Pramod Kumar Panda and Laxman Tudu of the very same Tribunal and finally it was argued by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has // 17 // been grossly discriminated and the order passed by the authority under Annexure-5 is grossly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. W.P.(C) No.12359 of 2022 22. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Opposite Party No.2-Nodal Officer, Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar under Annexure-5 and for a direction to the Opposite Parties to re-fix his pay in 3rd RACP in Level-10 of the pay matrix as per ORSP Rules, 2017 in continuation of Annexure-4 and further to grant all consequential benefit w.e.f. 04.10.2020 within a stipulated period of time. 23. The facts of the present case are almost identical to the facts of the W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022 which has been narrated elaborately hereinabove. 24. The Petitioner joined as a Junior Grade Typist in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar on being duly appointed on 24.09.1990 and upon his joining on 04.10.1990 he was posted at Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and in course of his // 18 // employment, he was promoted to the post of Senior Grade Typist. Like Sri Ratnakar Sahoo, the present Petitioner was supposed to get 2nd RACP in the promotional grade of Senior Assistant and, accordingly, his pay was fixed in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- with financial benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The benefit of 2nd RACP was granted to the Petitioner vide Office Order dated 06.03.2014 under Annexure-4. While the Petitioner was continuing as such, the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar was abolished w.e.f. 02.08.2019. Thereafter, a Nodal Officer was appointed to look after the administrative matters of the Tribunal. The said Nodal Officer vide his Office Order No.3367 dated 16.11.2021 directed to reduce/revised the pay of the Petitioner and, accordingly, the pay was downgraded and the Petitioner was allowed a scale of Rs.5,200-20,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2013. Such a decision was taken basing on the recommendation of the Screening Committee. Further, a recommendation was also made to recover the excess amount from the salary of the Petitioner vide order dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-5. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition. // 19 // 25. The State-Opposite Parties have also filed a counter affidavit in the present case, which is identical to the counter affidavit filed in the case of Sri Ratnakar Sahoo (W.P.(C) No.12358 of 2022). Therefore, the same need not be repeated here. 26. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in both the writ petitions submitted that the case of the Petitioner in both the writ petitions are identical and the issue involved in both the writ petitions are also similar. Both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned decision dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-5. In course of his argument, Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner demonstrated that the decision taken by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar while granting the benefit of 2nd RACP in the scale of Senior Assistant is in accordance with the Rules, 1999. Further, referring to the rules, Mr. Das submitted that the next promotional post for both the Petitioners is Senior Assistant as has been provided in Schedule-1 appended to the Rules, 1999. Therefore, Mr. Das submitted that the Screening Committee has committed the gross error of law by revising and downgrading the scale of pay of the Petitioner which is contrary to the provisions of the Rules, 1999. // 20 // 27. He also contended that the Screening Committee while taking decision which was communicated to the Petitioners vide order dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-5 has not given any opportunity to the Petitioners. In other words, no show cause notice was ever issued to the Petitioner nor the Petitioner was granted any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order under Annexure-5. He further contended that the order under Annexure-5 has an adverse consequence and on the basis of the order under Annexure-5, the scale of pay of the Petitioners has been downgraded and in addition to that Opposite Parties have decided to recover the excess amount paid to the Petitioners on the basis of their unilateral calculation and, accordingly, decided to recovery the same from the salary of the Petitioner. 28. Mr. Das further contended that observance of natural justice is a mandatory requirement for judicial, quasi judicial and administrative authority before passing any order which is likely to affect a party adversely. Even the executive orders which have a civil consequence are to be passed after adhering to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, Mr. Das submitted that the decision under Annexure-5 has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice, i.e., without // 21 // providing an opportunity to show cause to the Petitioners. Therefore, the same is illegal, void and unsustainable in law. 29. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submits that the Screening Committee after proper evaluation and assessment has taken a decision in accordance with the Rules, 1999. Further, when it was detected by the Screening Committee that the scale of pay of both the Petitioners have been fixed erroneously and which is not in conformity with the Rules, 1999, therefore, the Screening Committee recommended that the scale of pay of the Petitioner needs to be downgraded and the excess amount paid to the Petitioners are to be recovered from their salary. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner very fairly submitted that while taking the decision under Annexure-5, no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the scale of pay granted under Annexure-4 shall not be revised. He further contended that such minor irregularities shall not vitiated the order under Annexure-5 which has been passed by the Screening Committee after thorough examination of the Petitioners’ case. // 22 // 30. Having heard the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon a careful consideration of the factual background of the cases and upon a conspectus of the materials placed before this Court by the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the order under Annexure-5 has affected both the Petitioners adversely as their pay scale was revised and downgraded that too without giving them an opportunity to show cause. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the orders dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-5 in both the writ petitions are unsustainable in law and needs to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 16.11.2021 under Annexure-5 in both the writ applications, which are identical, are hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded to the Nodal Officer, Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, who shall place the matter before the Screening Committee and the Screening Committee is directed to take a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to show cause to the Petitioners and further a final decision shall be taken in the matter by passing a speaking and reasoned order by taking into consideration all grounds raised by the Petitioners in their reply to the proposed show cause notice. The Opposite Parties are further directed to take a // 23 // decision in the matter within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Further, the Opposite Parties are also directed to act on the production of certified copy of this order. 31. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions are allowed partly. However, there shall be no order as to cost. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th January, 2023/D. Aech, P.A.