advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Pension Scheme by Autonomous University with out approval of Governor which depends for Grants on Govt. - not valid = 39. Statutes how made – 1. Statutes under this Act shall be proposed by the Board and submitted to the Chancellor for his assent and shall come into force only after the assent is received and notified by the Vice-Chancellor. 2. Any statutes may be amended or repealed by the Board with the assent of the Chancellor. 3. All Statutes made under this Act shall be published in the official Gazette.”= Section 39 of the Act, it was obligatory on the part of the Board of Management of the University to submit the resolutions dated 7th December, 2000 and 18th December, 2009 to the Chancellor i.e. to the Governor of the State of Rajasthan before inviting options from the employees. If the assent of the Chancellor, i.e. the Governor of the State of Rajasthan is not received by the University, the amended statute would not come into force.- Upon carefully going through the statutory provisions, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have constrained the University to continue to pay pension to the respondent-employees, especially in view of the fact that the change effected in the payment of retiral benefits to the employees was never approved by the Chancellor of the University as required under Section 39 of the Act.- though the University is an autonomous body, it is much dependent on the State of Rajasthan in its financial matters. It gets substantial funds from the State for performing its duties and possibly for the said reason the State has control over it in the financial affairs. Be that as it may, Section 39 of the Act makes it mandatory to get approval or assent of the Chancellor of the University before effecting any change in the Statute.= For the aforestated reasons, in our opinion, the order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant, whereby both the resolutions passed by the University in relation to giving options to its employees for changing the Contributory Provident Fund scheme to the Pension Scheme, is absolutely just and legal. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not correct while quashing and setting aside the order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant-State of Rajasthan.= whether the University can continue to give pension to the employees? Answer to the question would be in the negative. If issuance of show cause notice is a mere formality, in our opinion, that would not affect the decision taken by the University in pursuance of the order dated 3rd June, 2011 because the order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant-State is absolutely legal and by virtue of the said order, the resolutions dated 7th December, 2000 and 18th December, 2009 passed by the University have been quashed. In the aforestated circumstances, we quash and set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, which has confirmed the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge. The order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant-State shall operate and the employees shall be given retiral benefits as per the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme which was in force prior to 7th December, 2000. So far as the retired employees are concerned, they must have been paid pension in pursuance of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the High Court. As all the appeals have been allowed, some financial adjustments will have to be made and possibly there would be some recovery from some of the employees. We clarify that upon overall adjustment of the entire amount, if any employee has to return any amount to the University, as a special case, no demand shall be raised by the University in view of the fact that the employees must have retired long back and they must have adjusted their financial affairs upon knowing the fact that they had a regular income of pension.

        published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40829
                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL NO.  8469       OF 2013
                  (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12350 of 2013)


State of Rajasthan                                 …APPELLANT


                                VERSUS

A.N. Mathur & Ors.                           ....RESPONDENTS

                                    WITH

C.A.No.8470/2013 @ SLP(C)No.12351/2013, C.A.No.8471/2013 @ SLP(C)No.12352
/2013, C.A.No.8472/2013 @ SLP(C)No.12353/2013, C.A.No.8473/2013 @
SLP(C)No.12354/2013, C.A.No.8474/2013 @ SLP(C)No.12355/2013,
C.A.No.8475/2013 @ SLP(C)No.12356/2013,
C.A.No.8476/2013 @ SLP(C)No.12357/2013,C.A.No.8477/2013 @
SLP(C)No.12358/2013, C.A.No.8478/2013 @ SLP(C)No.12361/2013,
C.A.No.8479/2013 @ SLP(C)No.12362/2013 & C.A.No.8480/2013 @
SLP(C)No.14191/2013.


                              1 J U D G M E N T



1 ANIL R. DAVE, J.



1.    Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.


2.    Being aggrieved by  the  judgment  delivered  in  D.B.  Civil  Special
Appeal (Writ) No.431 of 2012 in S.B. Civil Writ  Petition  No.9843  of  2011
dated 19th July, 2012,  delivered  by  the  High  Court  of  Rajasthan,  the
appellant-State of Rajasthan has filed the present set of appeals.


3.    As all the appeals arise out of a common  judgment  delivered  by  the
Rajasthan High Court, all the appeals were heard together at the request  of
the learned counsel appearing for the concerned parties.





4.    The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in  a  nutshell,  are
as under:

      Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology  (hereinafter
called ‘the University’) is an autonomous body performing the   function  of
making provisions for imparting education in different  branches  of  study,
particularly   Agriculture,   Horticulture,   Veterinary   Science,   Animal
Husbandry etc. to the students and is constituted under  the  provisions  of
the  Rajasthan  Agricultural  University,  Udaipur  Act,  2000  (hereinafter
referred to as  ‘the  Act’).  
The  University  is  the  employer  of  other
respondents, who had been  either  working  under  the  University  and  now
retired or they are still in the employment of the University.


5.    The University had framed a Provident Fund Scheme for  its  employees.
Accordingly, in the past, upon retirement, the employees of  the  University
used  to  get  their  own  contribution  as  well  as  contribution  of  the
University by  way  of  retiral  benefits  as  per  the  provisions  of  the
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.  
On 7th December,  2000,  the  Board  of
Management of the University passed a resolution whereby it gave  an  option
to its employees to either continue under the  Contributory  Provident  Fund Scheme or to opt for  a  pension  scheme  under  the  Pension  Rules,  1990.
Certain employees had opted for the pension scheme.  
Once again,  the  Board
of Management of the University passed another resolution on 18th  December,
2009 inviting options from the employees as to whether they wanted  to  join
the Pension Scheme or wanted to continue under  the  Contributory  Provident
Fund Scheme. In pursuance of the second resolution, some more employees  had
opted for the pension scheme.


6.    Though the University is an  autonomous  body  constituted  under  the
provisions of ‘the Act’, it is dependant on the appellant in  its  financial
matters, as the University is unable to generate sufficient  funds  to  meet
with its expenditure.
According to Section 36 of the  Act,  the  appellant-
has to provide grant to the University to meet its  expenditure,  especially
in relation to the expenditure pertaining to salary and allowances given  to
its employees.  
Thus,  the  University  gets  substantial  funds  from  the
appellant. Due to the option exercised by several  employees  in  favour  of
the  pension  scheme,  financial  burden  of   the   University   had   been
substantially increased and the said burden was ultimately to be  discharged
by the appellant.  
It is pertinent to note here and it is an  admitted  fact
that before giving such an option under the resolutions dated 7th  December,
2000 and 18th December, 2009,  the  University  did  not  even  consult  the appellant in the matter of changing the scheme with  regard  to  payment  of retiral benefits to its employees.





7.    The appellant was unaware of the resolutions passed by  the  Board  of
Management  of  the  University,  whereby  its  employees  were  offered  an
opportunity to opt for the pension  scheme,
but  upon  getting  information
about the change effected by the University regarding implementation of  the Pension Scheme, upon due deliberation  by  the  Finance  Department  of  the appellant, under its order dated 3rd  June,  2011,  the  appellant  did  not approve the same.





8.    When the order dated 3rd June, 2011 issued by the appellant  had  been
communicated to the University, by an order dated 30th November,  2011,  the
University withdrew its  resolutions  dated  7th  December,  2000  and  18th
December, 2009.





9.    As  a  result  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  two  resolutions  by  the
University on 30th November, 2011, the employees,  who  had  opted  for  the
pension scheme were deprived of the benefit of the pension scheme,  and  the
University had to make necessary accounting adjustments for  making  payment
of the provident fund to the employees, which the  employees  were  entitled
to upon their retirement.  Some of the employees are very  much  in  service
and therefore, there was no question of any recovery and the University  had
to merely pass necessary book entries.





10.   Upon the Pension Scheme being abolished and as the  employees  had  to
either pay back the amount of pension received from the University  or  they
had to accept the Contributory Provident Fund scheme,  they  had  approached
the High Court of Rajasthan by filing several writ petitions.
Some  of  the
employees, who had  not  opted  for  the  pension  scheme,  had  also  filed
petitions praying that they be permitted to opt for the pension scheme  even
if there was delay in opting for the same.
The said writ petitions had  been
heard together by the learned single Judge of the High Court  and  they  had
been allowed by a common judgment dated 5th April, 2012.  
By virtue of  the
said judgment, the order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the  appellant-  the
Government of Rajasthan had been  quashed  and  as  a  result  thereof,  the
employees who had opted for the Pension Scheme were to be  paid  pension  by
the University in accordance with the Pension Rules.





11.   Being aggrieved by the aforestated judgment delivered by  the  learned
Single Judge, the University preferred  intra-court  appeals  and  the  said
appeals have been dismissed by the Division  Bench  of  the  Rajasthan  High Court by virtue of  the  impugned  judgment  and  therefore,  the  State  of Rajasthan has filed these appeals because ultimately, the burden of  payment of pension to the employees would be passed over to the State  of  Rajasthan
as per Section 36 of the Act.


12.   The learned counsel appearing for  the  appellant,  while  challenging
the validity of the impugned judgment as well as the judgment  delivered  by
the learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court  had  mainly  submitted
that the Resolutions passed by the Board of  Management  of  the  University
inviting options in relation to the Pension Scheme were in violation of  the
provisions of Section 39 of the Act.  Extracts of Sections 38 and 39 of  the
Acts are reproduced hereinbelow:

      “38.  Statutes – Subject to the provisions of this Act,  the  Statutes
      of the university may  provide  for  any  matter  connected  with  the
      affairs of  the  university  and  shall  in  particular,  provide  the
      following namely:-
           1. to 6.   xxx xxx xxx.
           7. Establishment  of  pension  and  insurance  schemes  for  the
           benefit  of  officers,  teachers  and  other  employees  of  the
           University and the rules, terms and conditions of such schemes.
           8 to 14.  xxx xxx xxx”
      “39.  Statutes how made –
           1. Statutes under this Act shall be proposed by  the  Board  and
              submitted to the Chancellor for his  assent  and  shall  come
              into force only after the assent is received and notified  by
              the Vice-Chancellor.
           2. Any statutes may be amended or repealed by the Board with the
              assent of the Chancellor.
           3. All Statutes made under this Act shall be  published  in  the
              official Gazette.”

  13. Section 38 of the  Act  clearly  indicates  that  the  University  can
      provide for any matter connected with the affairs  of  the  University
      and in particular, the matters  which  have  been  referred  to  under
      Section 38 of the Act.  
In the instant case,  we  are  concerned  with
      clause  7  of  Section  38  of  the  Act,  which  also   pertains   to
      establishment of pension scheme for the benefit of  the  employees  of
      the University.  
Thus, it is open to the University to frame or change
      any  scheme  with  regard  to  payment  of  retiral  benefits  to  its
      employees.





  14. In the instant case, the University wanted to change  the  scheme–from  the Contributory Provident Fund scheme  to  the  Pension  Scheme.
The
      University had given option to its employees to  opt  either  for  the
      Pension Scheme or to continue with  the  Contributory  Provident  Fund
      scheme and for that purpose, two resolutions, viz.  resolutions  dated
      7th December, 2000 and 18th December, 2009  had  been  passed  by  the
      Board of Management of the University.  
 In  the  said  process,  the
      University missed to look at the provisions of Section 39, which makes
      it obligatory for the Board of Management of the University to  submit
      the proposed amendment to  the  Chancellor  for  his  assent  and  the
      amended statute would  come  into  force  only  after  the  assent  is
      received and notified by the Vice-Chancellor of  the  University.
The
      Chancellor, as per the provisions of Section 2(h) read with
Section 8 of the Act, is the Governor of the State of Rajasthan.





15.   According to the aforestated provision of Section 39 of  the  Act,  it
was obligatory on the part of the Board of Management of the  University  to
submit the resolutions dated 7th December, 2000 and 18th December,  2009  to
the Chancellor i.e. to  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  Rajasthan  before
inviting options from the employees.  If the assent of the Chancellor,  i.e.
the Governor of the State of Rajasthan is not received  by  the  University,
the amended statute would not come into force.





16.   The aforestated provisions in Section 39  of  the  Act  are  of  vital
importance because the legislature wanted to  have  some  control  over  the
University, though the University is an autonomous body.
The reason  behind
having such a control could be for the fact that  the  University  is  given
substantial financial assistance by the appellant as one can  see  from  the
provisions of Section 36 of the Act.
Any financial  liability  is  incurred
by the University that is to be  ultimately  discharged  by  the  University
with the financial help of the State.





17.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  had  vehemently
submitted that before considering the change in the scheme  with  regard  to
giving different retiral benefits to its employees, the Board of  Management
of the University ought to have taken consent of the  Chancellor,  i.e.  the
Governor of the State of Rajasthan because the  increased  financial  burden
was to be borne by the State of Rajasthan.  Thus,  without  consent  of  the
State of Rajasthan,  who  is  ultimately  going  to  be  burdened  with  the
financial  liability  relating  to  payment  of  retirement  benefits,   the
University could not have changed the policy with regard to payment  of  the
retirement benefits.





18.    When  the  facts  about  the  resolutions  passed  by  the  Board  of
Management  of  the  University,  which  had  not  been  approved   by   the
Chancellor, were brought to the notice of the State of Rajasthan,  the  said
resolutions were duly considered by the State of Rajasthan and when  it  was
found that because of the said resolutions financial liability of the  State
was being increased for no justifiable reason, the State was constrained  to
pass the order dated 3rd June, 2011, whereby both the resolutions passed  by
the Board of Management of the University had been quashed and set aside.





19.   Thus, the  short  but  forceful  submission  of  the  learned  counsel
appearing for the State was that the change effected  in  the  scheme  under
which the employees were given retiral benefits was not legal or was not  in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore, the  employees  who
had opted for the Pension Scheme cannot be given pension and they will  have
to  continue  with  the  Contributory  Provident  Fund   scheme.    In   the
circumstances, he had prayed that the appeals  should  be  allowed  and  the
impugned judgment confirming  the  judgment  of  the  learned  single  Judge
should be quashed and set aside.





20.   On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing  for  the  University
had  passively  supported  the  submissions  made  by  the  learned  counsel
appearing for the State and he had to admit the fact  that  before  inviting
options from the employees in pursuance of the two resolutions  referred  to
hereinabove, approval of the Chancellor, i.e. the Governor of the  State  of
Rajasthan  had  not  been  obtained  by  the  Board  of  Management  of  the
University.





21.   The appeal was vehemently opposed on behalf of the  employees  of  the
respondent- University.





22.   The learned counsel appearing for the  employees  had  submitted  that
the employees had opted for the Pension Scheme within the period  prescribed
by the resolutions passed by the Board of Management of the  University  and
therefore, the University had no right to make  any  change  in  the  policy
thereafter.





23.   It had been further submitted that some of  the  respondent  employees
had also started getting pension upon their retirement in pursuance  of  the
option exercised by them.
According to the learned  counsel,  it  would  be
unjust to change the scheme with regard to the retiral benefits  considering
the lapse of time and it would be unfair to the employees  who  are  getting
pension as per the option exercised by them. 
 It had been further  submitted
that the change effected in the policy with regard  to  payment  of  retiral
benefits by the University was retrospective in  nature  and  therefore,  it
was bad in law.





24.   The learned counsel appearing for the  employees  had  also  submitted
that before effecting change in the scheme, no notice  was  ever  issued  to
the employees and therefore, the action of the  withdrawal  of  the  Pension
Scheme was against the principles of natural justice.





25.   The learned counsel appearing for  the  employees  had  supported  the
reasons given in the impugned judgment and had also submitted  that  certain
other universities in the State of Rajasthan were also giving benefit  of  a
pension scheme to its employees and therefore, there  was  no  justification
on the part of the University from preventing  its  employees  from  getting
the benefit of the Pension Scheme.  He had, therefore,  submitted  that  the
appeals should be dismissed.





26.   We have heard  the  learned  counsel  at  length  and  have  carefully
considered the provisions of the Act, and  the  resolutions  passed  by  the
University as well  as  the  order  dated  3rd  June,  2011  passed  by  the
appellant-State.





27.   Upon carefully going through the statutory provisions, we are  of  the view that the High Court ought not to have  constrained  the  University  to continue to pay pension to the respondent-employees, especially in  view  of the fact that the change effected in the payment of retiral benefits to  the employees was  never  approved  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  University  as required under Section 39 of the Act.





28.   As stated hereinabove, though the University is  an  autonomous  body,
it is much dependent on the State of Rajasthan  in  its  financial  matters.
It gets substantial funds from the  State  for  performing  its  duties  and
possibly for the said reason the State has control over it in the  financial
affairs. Be that as it may, Section 39 of the Act makes it mandatory to  get
approval or assent of the Chancellor of the University before effecting  any
change in the Statute.


29.   In spite of clear and unambiguous provisions  of  Section  39  of  the
Act, the Board of Management of the University did not get necessary  assent
of the Chancellor, i.e. the  Governor  of  the  State  of  Rajasthan  before
effecting the change in  the  scheme  with  regard  to  payment  of  retiral
benefits to its employees.  The change in scheme would result  into  a  huge
financial liability on the University, which  ultimately  will  have  to  be
borne by the appellant- the State of Rajasthan.   Had  the  University  been
having complete autonomy  and  had  been  not  dependent  on  the  State  of
Rajasthan in its financial matters, possibly Section 39  of  the  Act  would
not have been incorporated in the  Act  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  at
present.  When the appellant is reimbursing the expenditure incurred by  the
University by giving grants or financial aids in one form or the other,  the
control exercised by the State on the University in  the  financial  matters
is completely justified. The University cannot unilaterally decide  to  give
huge financial benefit to  its  employees  without  taking  consent  of  the
Chancellor, i.e. the Governor of the State of Rajasthan in violation of  the
provisions of Section 39 of the Act.





30.   From the contents of the order dated 3rd June,  2011,  passed  by  the
State of Rajasthan it is clear that because of the  changed  policy  adopted
by the University in the matter of payment of the retiral  benefits  to  its
employees,  financial  burden  on  the  University  would  be  substantially
increased and ultimately that burden will  have  to  be  discharged  by  the
State of Rajasthan.  As the University had taken the  decision  to  give  an
option to its employees for changing the manner in which  they  were  to  be
given retiral benefits in violation of Section 39 of the Act, the  State  of
Rajasthan was entitled to reject the change effected by the University.





31.   For the aforestated reasons, in  our  opinion,  the  order  dated  3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant, whereby both the resolutions  passed  by the University in relation to giving options to its employees  for  changing the Contributory Provident Fund scheme to the Pension Scheme, is  absolutely just and legal.
We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was  not
correct while quashing and setting aside the  order  dated  3rd  June,  2011
passed by the appellant-State of Rajasthan.


32.   A submission had been made on behalf of the employees that some  other
universities in the State of Rajasthan are giving pension to its  employees.
 Be that as it may, each University has a different  set  of  rules  and  if
another university had adopted a different policy in accordance with law  or
as per its rules and regulations, we cannot say that  the  order  dated  3rd
June, 2011 passed by the appellant is incorrect.  According to us, the  said
submission is not  relevant  and  therefore,  we  do  not  accept  the  said
submission.





33.   So far as the submission with regard to violation  of  the  principles
of natural justice is concerned, in our opinion, by not  giving  hearing  to
the concerned employees, the action  of  the  University  would  not  become
void. Violation of one of the principles of natural justice would  make  the
action voidable and not void.





34.   Let us see as to what would happen if the University gives notices  to
all the employees calling upon them to show  cause  as  to  why  the  option
exercised by them should not be cancelled so  as  to  restore  the  original
scheme of the Contributory  Provident  Fund.  
Even  after  considering  the
replies of the  employees,  the  question  is
whether  the  University  can continue to give pension to the employees?  
Answer to the question would  be
in the negative.  If issuance of show cause notice is a mere  formality,  in
our opinion, that would not affect the decision taken by the  University  in
pursuance of the order dated 3rd June, 2011  because  the  order  dated  3rd
June, 2011 passed by the appellant-State is absolutely legal and  by  virtue
of the said order,  the  resolutions  dated  7th  December,  2000  and  18th
December, 2009 passed by the University have been quashed.





35.   In view of the above circumstances, we are of the view  that  even  if
the employees were not given any notice, the final  decision  taken  by  the
University is not bad in law.





36.   In the aforestated circumstances, we quash and set aside the  impugned
judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court,  which
has confirmed the judgment delivered  by  the  learned  single  Judge.   
The
order dated 3rd June, 2011 passed by the appellant-State shall  operate  and
the employees shall be  given  retiral  benefits  as  per  the  Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme which was in force prior to 7th  December,  2000.  
 So
far as the retired  employees  are  concerned,  they  must  have  been  paid
pension in pursuance of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of  the
High  Court.   
As  all  the  appeals  have  been  allowed,  some   financial
adjustments will have to be made and possibly there would be  some  recovery
from some of the employees.  
We clarify that upon overall adjustment of  the
entire amount, if any employee has to return any amount to  the  University,
as a special case, no demand shall be raised by the University  in  view  of
the fact that the employees must have retired long back and they  must  have
adjusted their financial affairs upon knowing  the  fact  that  they  had  a
regular income of pension.  
We also clarify that if  prior  to  passing  the
resolution dated 7th December, 2000  by  the  Board  of  Management  of  the
University, if there  was  any  scheme  about  payment  of  pension  to  its
employees and if some of the  employees  had  opted  for  the  said  scheme,
payment of pension to such employees would not  be  affected  by  virtue  of
this judgment.


37.   The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.



…..……………................J.

(ANIL R. DAVE)



                                          ….................................
                                          ....J.

(DIPAK MISRA)
New Delhi
September 23,  2013.


ITEM NO.1A                COURT NO.12            SECTION XV
(For judgment)

            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A
                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12350/2013

STATE OF RAJASTHAN                         Petitioner(s)

                 VERSUS

A.N. MATHUR & ORS.                          Respondent(s)

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12351 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12352 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12353 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12354 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12355 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12356 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12357 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12358 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12361 of 2013,
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).12362 of 2013 &
CIVIL APPEAL No........../2013 @ SLP(C)No(s).14191 of 2013.

Date: 23/09/2013  These Appeals were called on for
                    pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s)      Dr. Manish Singhvi,AAG
                       Mr. Amit Lubhaya,Adv.
                    Ms. Pragati Neekhra,AOR

For Respondent(s)      Mr. Vivek Tankha,Sr.Adv.
                    Mr. T. Mahipal,AOR
                       Mr. Rishabh Sancheti,Adv.
                     Mr. Padmapriya,Adv.

                     Mr. Milind Kumar,AOR
                     Ms. Charu Mathur,AOR
                        Mr. Mukul Kumar,AOR
                                                                       ..2/-
                                     .2.



            Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the reportable  judgment  of
      the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship.
            The appeals are  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable
      judgment.




    |(Sarita Purohit)                        | |(Indu Pokhriyal)                  |
|Court Master                            | |Court Master                      |



             (Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.