Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Hazari Ram vs M/O Defence — CAT (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
CAT
2026
Hazari Ram vs M/O DefenceHazari Ram v. M/O Defence

Hazari Ram v. M/O Defence

CAT22 Sept 2026O.A./377/2016

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

Recorded against

Jodhpur

This is one of 611 Original Application cases decided by the CAT in 2026.

Filed as

Original ApplicationJudgment2026

A

1 OA No.377/2016

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

Original Application No.377/2016

Pronounced on : 22.09.2026 Reserved on : 21.08.2026

CORAM

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J) HON’BLE Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA, MEMBER (A)

Hazari Ram son of Late Shri Bhiv Raj, aged about 57 years, resident of 185, Parsawnath, Nagar, near Hemsagar Bera, Bhadwasia, Jodhpur342010, at present employed on the post of Carpenter SK (MES No. 169383), in the office of GE MES, Sikargarh, near ASC Supply Depot, Ratanada, Jodhpur-342011.

…..Applicant

By Advocate : Mr. A.K. Kaushik

Versus

Union of India through Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi.

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: CAT
Decided on: 22 Sept 2026 · September
Case no.: O.A./377/2016
Case type: Original Application

An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.

All orders in this case

3 orders share this CNR

1 Oct 2021Order 1
1 Jul 2025Order 2
22 Sept 2026Order 3 — this page

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

Nearest Original Application decided by the CAT

Janaki Ballav Mohanty vs Labour and Employment (Ms)
21 Sept 2026
Smt Suman Devi vs North Central Railway
21 Sept 2026
Rayees Ahmad Sheikh vs Health and Medical Education Department
21 Sept 2026
Dr Govind Buchi Reddy vs Ayush
21 Sept 2026

Cite this judgement

Hazari Ram v. M/O Defence, O.A./377/2016 (CAT), decided on 22 September 2026.

The Central Administrative Tribunal publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

The Command Works Manager (Army), Multan Lines, Jodhpur342010.

Garrison Engineer (Army). MES, Sikargarh, near ASC Supply Depot, Ratanada, Jodhpur-342011.

Accounts Officer, 0/0 Garrison Engineer (Army). MES, Sikargarh, Near ASC Supply Depot, Ratanada, Jodhpur-342011.

Shri Jagdish, Carpenter (SK) Office of the Garrison Engineer, MES Engineer Park, Jodhpur.

...... Respondents

By Advocate: Mr. K.S. Yadav

Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

RADHE SHYAM SONGARA

2 OA No.377/2016

ORDER

Per Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)

Being aggrieved from the order No.1104/48/E1P dated 18.09.2015 (Annexure-A/1), whereby the applicant was denied stepping up of the pay at par with his next junior, the applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and sought following reliefs:-

“(i) That impugned order dt.18.9.2016 (Annexure A-1) may be declared illegal and the same may be quashed. The respondents may be directed to consider the case of applicant for grant of stepping up his pay with effect from 01.01.2002 and fix the same at Rs.3800/- at par with his next junior the respondent No.5 and applicant be allowed with all consequential benefits including subsequent revisions and the payment of difference of arrears thereof.

(ii). That any other direction, or orders may be passed in favour of the applicant which may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice.

(iii). That the costs of this application may be awarded”

Brief facts of the case are as under :-

2.1 The applicant submitted that he was initially appointed as Mazdoor in the pay scale of Rs.196-232 on 06.06.1979 and subsequently promoted to the post of Mate in Semi-Skilled category in the pay scale of Rs.800-1150 with effect from April 1992. Finally, he was promoted to the post of Carpenter Semi Skilled w.e.f. 01.09.1997 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/3050-4590, in the revised pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with GP of Rs.1900/-. Thereafter, he has been granted benefit of MACP scheme and granted GP Rs.2400/-. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was initially junior to one Shri Jagdish on

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

3 OA No.377/2016

the post of Mazdoor. However, subsequently, the applicant by virtue of getting early promotion to the next post of Mate (Semi Skilled) became senior to Shri Jagdish, the respondent No. 5. The applicant also started getting higher pay as well as early promotion than said Shri Jagdish. Thereafter, Shri Jagdish got the next promotion to the post of Carpenter Semi Skilled on 01.01.2002 and his pay was accordingly fixed at a higher stage i.e. Rs.3800/-, whereas the applicant on the same day was Rs.3650/- only.

2.2 It is apt to mention that the initial fixation of the pay had also affected the subsequent pay fixation in the revised pay scale. He also referred to the service record which he received from the respondents qua the applicant and the respondent No.5 and submitted a comparative statement wherein it was stated that the initial entry point of the applicant was in the pay scale of Rs.196-232 on 06.06.1979 whereas in the entry point of the respondent No.5 was in the pay scale of Rs.196232 on19.01.1979. Subsequently, the applicant was promoted as Mate (SS) in the pay scale of Rs.800-15-4 01 O-EB-20-1150 at the pay of Rs.950/- w.e.f. April 1992 whereas respondent No.5 was promoted as Mate (SS) in the pay scale of Rs.800-15-1010-EB-20-1150 at the pay of Rs.980/- w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and finally the applicant was promoted as a Carpenter (SK) on 01.09.1997 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-804590 and his pay was fixed at Rs.3650/- on 01.09.2001, and the respondents No.5 was promoted to the post of Carpenter (SK) on 01.01.2002 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 and his pay was fixed at Rs.3800/- on 01.01.2002.

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

4 OA No.377/2016

2.3 He also relied upon the Note No.23 below FR 22 of FRSR Vol-I 23rd edition Swami's Compilation, which stipulated as under:-

“(a) both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre;

(b) the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical;

(c) the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or on any other account, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer."

Therefore, the applicant fulfilled all the requisite condition required for stepping up of his pay at par with his next junior Shri Jagdish, respondent No. 5 with effect from 01.0.2002 and accordingly his pay should have been fixed at Rs.3800/- in place of Rs.3650/- at par with the basic pay of Shri Jagdish on 01.01.2002 according to FR 22 (C). Being aggrieved from the inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicant submitted representations, which were forwarded to the competent authority. The last exhaustive representation was filed on 12.11.2014. The respondents decided the representation of the applicant denying the stepping up of pay on the basis that the stepping up of pay rule is not applicable to the case of applicant herein.

2.4 Further, it is apt to mention that the applicant was getting higher pay after his promotion to the post of Mate i.e. feeder post for promotion as Carpenter SK and it was not a case where a junior got promotion earlier and was in receipt of lower pay. Therefore, the clause D of Rule 23 (2) as relied upon by 4th respondent is misconceived and is based on

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

5 OA No.377/2016

wrong facts. He further submitted that after recommendation of the 7^th CPC and revision of the pay, his case would be more complicated; he would be facing recurring financial loss and his future service prospectus would be jeopardised for none of his faults. Therefore, on the basis of the above, it requires the intervention of this Hon'ble Tribunal for redressal of his grievances on the following grounds.

2.5 It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the pay anomaly had been due to the application of FR 22(C) and also covered under the Note.23 below FR 22. He was fully entitled for stepping up of his pay at par with his next junior i.e. private respondent No.5. Since, the respondent No.5, who is junior to the applicant has been fixed at a higher stage of pay and getting higher pay than the applicant, the respondents have not taken any final decision and on the other hand, the case is being kept pending due to some extraneous reasons best known the authorities. Therefore, on the basis of the above, he prayed that the instant OA may be allowed.

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

Per contra, respondents filed reply wherein they denied the averments made by the applicant herein and further submitted that the respondent No.5 was appointed on 19.01.1979 whereas the applicant was appointed on 06.06.1979, therefore, the applicant is admittedly junior to the respondent No.5 on the entry point of time. Subsequently, the applicant was promoted to the post of Mate w.e.f. April, 1992 whereas the respondent no.5 got the same promotion w.e.f. January, 1995. On promotion, the pay of the applicant as well as respondent No.5 was fixed as per the Rule and the applicant was drawing more pay than the respondent No.5. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as a

6 OA No.377/2016

Carpenter w.e.f. 01.09.1997 whereas respondent No.5 was promoted to the Carpenter Semi Skilled w.e.f. 01.01.2002. In consequence of such promotion initially the pay of respondent No.5 was fixed at Rs.3800/however, there was anomaly in the pay of the respondent No. 5 which came to the notice of the department and consequently the pay of the respondent No.5 was re-fixed at Rs.3725/- w.e.f. 01.01.2002. The Department is also in process to recover the excess payment made to the respondent No.5. Consequently both the individual i.e. applicant as well as respondent No. 5 have been getting pay at Rs.3725/- w.e.f. 2002.Therefore, it is clear that no anomaly etc. is in existence to maintain the instant OA as claimed by the applicant for stepping up of pay by the applicant.

3.1 The respondents also submitted the statements of the pay fixation of the applicant as well as respondent No.5, wherein it is stated that on 01.09.2002, the basic pay of the applicant was reportedly mentioned as Rs.3725/- and also the basic pay of the respondent No.5 was reportedly mentioned as Rs.3725/-. It is apt to mention that the main prayer of the applicant for stepping of pay is based on the provision as per Note 23 (a) to (c) appended below FR-22. However, it was submitted that the provisions and instances described under note 23 (2) (a) to (c) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In fact note 23 (2) (d) governs the situation arisen in the instant case which provides as follows:-

"23 (2) (d) if a senior is appointed later than the junior in the lower post itself, whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior, in such cases also

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

7 OA No.377/2016

the senior can't claim pay parity in the higher post though he may even promoted earlier to the higher post."

While applying the aforesaid provision in the instant case admittedly the applicant although became senior in consequence of promotion on the post of Carpenter (Semi Skilled) but he was in fact appointed after respondent No.5 on the lower post and consequently was getting lesser pay than respondent No.5 on the initial post. Therefore, even in consequence of promotion on the higher post prior to his senior i.e. respondent No.5, the applicant cannot claim any pay parity on the higher post. In fact the applicant is claiming stepping up of pay and made the basis on those provisions which are not applicable upon him therefore the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

3.2 The respondents also referred to the cardinal principles behind the provisions quoted hereinabove is that "the senior on the initial post shall always remain senior" which is well recognized by the courts of law through various pronouncements. The respondents also assailed the delay in filing the OA by the applicant. It is evident from the record that the cause of action of stepping of the pay arose on 01.01.2002 whereas the applicant chose to file the representation only on 12.11.2014 after passing of more than 12 years of arising of the cause of action as the present OA has been filed in the year 2016. It is also well settled law that filling the representation and informing about the rejection of the same cannot be a ground to condone the delay caused by the applicant for approaching this Tribunal. Therefore, the instant OA is also time barred by limitation by a period more than 15 years and consequently the same is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, he also referred to the

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

8 OA No.377/2016

ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Boop Singh vs UOI & Ors that the period of limitation for filling an application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is to be counted from original date of cause of action and submissions of representation does not extend the period of limitation. He also referred the judgment delivered by CAT Bench Jaipur in OA No. 585/2009, quoting the following observation in judgment of Apex Court in the cases of C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr and UOI & Ors. vs. M K Sarkar, decision on 22.03.2010:-

"The Courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any decision on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to consider? If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay; all the ex-employees file an application/ writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982 but by treating the rejection of representation given in 2000 as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and grant of the relief claimed in the representation and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the latches get obliterated or ignored."

Therefore, on the basis of the above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the instant OA deserves to be rejected on the ground of limitation.

3.3 Learned counsel for the respondents also countered the stand taken by the applicant for supporting his arguments on the basis that the fixation of the applicant and respondent No.5 are according to the

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

9 OA No.377/2016

entitlement, Rules, bye-laws and policy in vogue on the subject thus there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as claimed by the applicant herein. It is also a settled principle of service law that a senior even promoted later cannot become junior if he was senior at initial stage. Consequently the applicant being junior at initial post shall always remain junior and cannot claim parity on the post on the basis of so called misconceived anomalies as alleged in instant OA. Therefore, on the basis of the above, the OA may be dismissed.

Applicant filed rejoinder, wherein he denied the averments made in the reply filed by the respondents. He also filed written submissions wherein he referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal and Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors, 2009 (2) SLJ (SC) and submits that a senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior. He also referred the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter on Shyamapada Roy & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (WPCT No.224/2020) decided on 07.12.2011, which was upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.4901/2013 decided on 11.02.2014.

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

Heard both the learned counsel at length and perused the material available on record. It is undisputedly admitted fact admitted by the applicant that the applicant was appointed as Mazdoor on 06.06.1979 whereas the respondent No.5, Shri Jagdish was appointed on 19.01.1979, therefore, it is evident that the applicant was junior than the respondent No.5 in the initial post as Majdoor. Subsequently, the applicant and the respondent No.5 were promoted to the post of Mate (Semi Skilled) w.e.f. April 1992 and January, 1995 respectively.

10 OA No.377/2016

Thereafter, the applicant and respondent No.5 were also promoted on the post of Carpenter (Semi Skilled) w.e.f 01.09.1997 and 01.01.2002 respectively. Initially the pay of the respondent No.5 was wrongly fixed as Rs.3800/- which was subsequently corrected to Rs.3725/- w.e.f. 01.01.2002. He also submitted the statement of the applicant herein wherein the pay of the applicant was fixed as Rs.3725/- w.e.f. 01.01.2002, therefore, there is no difference of the pay between the applicant and the respondent No.5, as on 01.01.2002.

5.1 As far as the contention of the applicant on the basis of the principles of stepping up of pay with regard to junior is concerned, the arguments of the applicant is not acceptable on the basis of provisions of the stepping of pay as per Note 23 (2) (a) to (c) appended below of FR 22 as it is not applicable to the applicant. The fact is that, according to the facts and circumstances of the applicant, the relevant provisions is mentioned in Note 23 (2) (d) which governs the situation for fixation of the pay of the applicant herein. Both the provisions are listed as follows:-

“Note 23 (a) to (c) appended below FR-22 :-

(a) both the junior and senior officer should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre;

(b) the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which the junior and senior officer are entitled to draw pay should be identical;

(c) the anomaly should be directly as a result of the application of FR 22-C. For example, if even in the lower post the junior officer draws from time to

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0

11 OA No.377/2016

time a higher rate of pay than the senior by virtue of grant of advance increments or on any other account, the above provisions will not be invoked to step up the pay of senior officer."

"23 (2) (d) if a senior is appointed letter than the junior in the lower post itself, whereby he is in receipt of lesser pay than the junior, in such cases also the senior can't claim pay parity in the higher post though he may even promoted earlier to the higher post."

As per perusal of the above provision, it is evident that para 23 (2) (d) would be squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case instead of Note 23 (2) (a) to (c).

5.2 It is also evident from the record that the applicant has filed this OA after 14 years of arising cause of action on 01.01.2002, when the respondent No.5 was promoted to the post of Carpenter (Semi Skilled). According to the statements submitted by the respondents herein, the pay of the applicant as well as respondent No.5 were Rs.3725/- on 01.01.2002, therefore, there is complete pay parity between the applicant and the respondent No.5.

5.3 In view of the above, we find no merit in the instant OA. Hence, The OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Dr. HUKUM SINGH MEENA) (RAMESHWAR VYAS) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Rss

SONGARASHYAM RADHE Digitally signed by RADHE SHYAM SONGARADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=b3cf80c4c3b745d7689322c892476a366327b3fdc70f038036bf14a472f369be, PostalCode=342006, S=Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=B9DF04312F53F00F720974CA155836FA54CA986DB2EE75670488A0E9BABB99BF, CN=RADHE SHYAM SONGARAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.24 16:20:49+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0