Dr. Vemula Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Dr. Vemula Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed. Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's request to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis from 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2006 for computation of qualifying service and to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per the revised pension rules of 1980 in accordance with law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing, and to pass appropriate orders and communicate the decision to the petitioner within three (03) weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent departments' failure to count the petitioner's temporary service rendered on contract basis from 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2006 towards qualifying service, so as to sanction regular pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per the Revised Pension Rules 1980 after her retirement on 30.09.2020, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

Under Rules 13 and 14 of the AP Revised Pension Rules 1980, qualifying service of a Government servant commences from the date he or she takes charge of the post to which he or she is first appointed, whether substantively, officiating or in a temporary capacity; consequently, pre-regularization temporary/contract service counts towards qualifying service.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents' plea that the petitioner is eligible only for counting of service from the date of her regularization (G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994) is untenable; the petitioner cannot be deprived of her constitutional right to have her past contract service from 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2006 counted for computation of qualifying service, since pension is not a bounty but property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 8275 of 2023 (High Court for the State of Telangana, Surepalli Nanda J., 16.06.2025): Dr. Vemula Padmavathi, a retired Medical Officer (superannuated 30.09.2020), sought counting of her temporary service rendered on contract basis from 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2006 towards qualifying service for sanction of regular pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits under the Revised Pension Rules 1980. Placing reliance on counsel's submission that the issue was covered by the order dated 24.11.2022 in W.P. No. 7343 of 2019, and on State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, 2013 (12) SCC 210 (right to pension is property under Article 300-A, not a bounty), the Division Bench order dated 17.03.2016 in W.P. No. 8201 of 2016, Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, (2019) 10 SCC 542, the judgment in W.P. No. 1425 of 2019, (2001) 10 SCC 473, Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 1 SCC (L&S), and the dismissal of the special leave petition in State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanibhai Patel, the Court held that Rules 13 and 14 of the AP Revised Pension Rules 1980 clearly indicate qualifying service commences from the date of taking charge of the first appointed post even in a temporary capacity. The respondents' stand restricting countable service to the post-regularization period under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 was held untenable. Petition allowed: respondents directed to consider counting the 06.02.2002-24.04.2006 contract service for qualifying service, afford a personal hearing, and pass and communicate appropriate orders within three weeks; no costs.

132521

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction) .

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 8275 OF 2023

Between:

Dr. Vemula Padmavathi, D/o. Radha^{Krishna Aged about 61 years, Retired as} Medical Officer O/o. Government. Ayurvedic^{Dispensary Naredpally(V)'} Shyampet⁽ Mandal) Warangal^{District, Telangana State. R/o.H.No.27-14-78,} Op'p.^potlcb Station, Hasaiparthy^{(V and M) Warangal (Urban) Erstwhile} Disirict, Hanmakonda Present^{District. TelanganaState.}

...pirtlorueR

AND

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by^{its PrincipalSeffetary, Health, Medicaland} Family Welfare Departmi:nt,^{- GovernmentofTelangana,Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

2 The Commissioner, Department of^{Ayush,Governmentof Telangana,5h} Floor TSGLI Building, Tilak^{Road,Abids, Hyderabad.}

The State of Telangana, rep. by its^{Secretary, Financeand Planning} Department, Telangana Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be pleased} to issue an order or^{directionmoreparticularly one in the natureof writ of} Mandamus to declare the^{indecisionof the Respondent Department in not taking} any steps to count the^{temporaryservice rendered on contractbasis by the} peiitioner from the year 06-02-2002 lo^{24-04-2006 in the Respondenl Department} io sanction regular^{pension, gratuity and other retirement benefitsas per revised} pension rules of 1980, on retiring from service^{on 30-09-2020due to indecisionof} iespondent Department^{from16 long yearsas highly illegal, unjust, unfair, totally} arbitrary and^prays to direct^{the respondents herein to countthe past service} rendered by the^petitioner on^{contract basisfrom the year 06-02-2002to 24-04'} 2006 in th-e respondent Department^{to reckonthe periodfor compulation of} qualifying service to sanction^{pension,gratuity and other. retirement benefits to the} petitionei as per the Revised Pension Scheme^{Rules 1980, with arrears along with} interest from ihe date of retirement^{of petitionerw.e.f., 30-09-2020 on attaining age} of superannuation with all consequential^{monetary benefits by awarding exorbitant}

costs against rer;po.c €'nts for their indecision for 16 long years n forcing the petitioners to ap;proarr:tr this Hon'ble court for justice to apprly t.re judgrients rendered in the sirrili:1y situated cases in w.p.No 1173s of zttis, at.oa.iz.zozl gnd the^principle la id r y the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Devarakonda srilakshmi Vs G,rve'rnrent of A.p., (zo1o 2ALD 165) under r\rtic e .141 of our constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar tc, them not as dissimilar as per the p^-incipal laid by the Flonible Supreme cou{ in c.A.No.62606261 of 2021 , dt.1t6 1 0 2:02i , (2021 (6)ALD 285(SC)

lA NO: 1 OF 20 23i

Petition un,lerr rlection 151 cpc praying that in the circumstarces stated in the affidavit filed in sr-rpp,ort of the petition, the High court may ber pleirsed to direct the Respondent herr,:rr to make eligible the petitioner for -sanciior, of peniion, gratuity and otherr re t rement benefits as per revised pension Rutes igB0 by counting the pasr. s€ir'i1le rendered by the petitioner on temporary basis under contract service ir the respondent department as Medical officer fbr i,:rmputation of qualifying service, as per the Judgment rendered in similarly situated .r* in W.P.No.1'1 735 of 2C 1 !r, dt.06.02.2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CH GANESH

Counsel for the Respcndents: Gp FOR SERVICES I

The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION No.8275 of 2O23

ORDER

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I representing all the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record.

2 Tha nalitiarnar rrrr.rrarra hed the Cou ri caalziner fha

Draver a follows:

"......to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the indecision oF the Respondent Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered on contract basis by the petitioner from the year 06.02.2002 to 24.O4.2006 in the Respondent Department to sanction regular pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980 on retiring from service on 30.09.2020 due to indecision of respondent Department from 16 long years as highly illegal unjust unfair totally arbitrary and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the

{

2

\

peti':ion,:r on contract basis from the yearr 06.O2,.tCCt2 to 24.04.2006 in the responder,t Departrrr:nt to reckon the period for computatio,r of qu,:li..ring service to sanction pension, gratuit,/ and other retirement benefits to the petitioner ar; per tl-e Ftr:vised pension Scheme Rules 1980, witr arrears along with interest from the date cf retirerne:nt: of petitioner w. e. f. 30.09..2020 on attaininll age of superannuation with a I consequer tial monetary benefits by awardinrl exorbitant costs against respondents for their

inder:ir;i,: rr for 16 long years in forcing thr,r petitione,rs to approach this Honble Court fo.. justii:e to apply the judgments rendered in thr,r similarl)/ :;ituated cases in W. p. No. 11735 of .101!) dt 06 )2. 2023 and the principle taid by the: Honbrle !iLi treme Court in the case of Devarakond;r Srilal<shrri Vs Government of A. p. (2010 2ALt, 165) t r,rjer Article 141 of our Constitution in th€ present case treating the petitioner as similar tc therr no: as dissimilar as per the principal laid by the Flcni:le Supreme Court in C. A. No. 6260-6.261 of 2C2L rlt 26. 10. 2027 2021 (6)ALD 285(SC) and pass...'

It is s:tr:cif ic case of the petitioner that the Respondent Departmenl ii not taking any steps to count the :em itorary service rencle-,:l on contract basis by the petitioner.frcm the

I

J

sN.l

year 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2000 in the Respondent

Department to sanction regular pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980 on retiring from service on 30.09.2020 due to inaction of the respondent Department for more than a decade in spite of petitioner's repeated requests for the same. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

It is represented by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the subject issue in the present Writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.LL.2O22 passed in W.P.No,7343 2O19 and hence, the present writ petition could be allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 24.LL.2O22 passed in W.P.No.7343 2019.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that under similar circumstances in pursuance to the order dated 2O.O6.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.177OO of 2016 one Sri P. Dasharadham, approached the High Court for the relief as prayed for

4

I

in the Wril:^{petition and the same was implementedby} the respondents^{therein vide Lr-No.6O47ICRP&RE/C-} 212OL8., ctated^{1O.10.2O18and also communicaitedthe} same to the^{petitionerthereunder videletter} Rc.No.B1.O /4^t7O /^{2015, dated08. 10.2018'}

6 Lea rn d Ass stant Govern ent^Plea for Servicesdjlpoearinq^{on behalf of the respondents does} not diso uts.,- the said^{submissions made bv the learned} co nsel a^Deart nb lf of et ne r.

DISCU S I NA ND CON LUSIO^N:-

SutsLee ses^(a) o'f 1 h olovee and(b shall fgrth er tisf he ndit n st ulate nder Ru le 14 !,lL the^{Rules for countinohis temDorarv' service} arv benefits.^{Rules13and 14 of} the. Andhra Pra esh llevtsed^{Pension R} les, 1980 de ls with the service of ate DOrary emolo^ee for^the qual ifvinq tnder:-

"73. Commen^{cementof oualifv,ino service::l;uiect to} he ro ts he tn se Ee--gL--A Gove nt sh mm fro the^dat(.: he^takes

J

chzrd of the t to which he is first aDDointed either substa tivelv or in a officiatino or temDorerv Dacitv: Provided that -

(a) in the case of a Government servant in a Class IV seryice or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent persionable post prior to the 17k November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen (16) years shall not count for any purpose; and

(b) in the case of a Government servant nocovered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity. 14. n to wh ualifi : (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualiFy duties are and pay unless his regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government.

(2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression service means service under the Government and paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government."

Ina iudqment of the ADex Court in S te of Jharkhand and other versus Jiten dra Kumar Srivastava and another reDort d in 2O13 ( 12) SCC 210. dated L4.O8.2O13 it was eld that oen sion and oratuitv are t boun but wt hi eme ntn Articl 300-A of thi: Constitut ion of India. ParaoraDhs 15 and

of th rt as un

The Fact remains that there is an imprimature to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in "property". Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under:

"300-4. Persons not to be deprived oF property save by authority of law No person shall be deprived of his

6

l.

\

prop,erty save by^{authority of la v " Oncewe pror:eed on} ir,;ri^{p-,irrise, B the answerto the quest'on post':db US} in iii' ti,rginning^{of this judgmentbecomes too r:bvious'} A ,rr,,rr,,u".unnoi^{be depiiredof this pensionwitl out the} uuii:.i i,v of^{law, which is the constitutionalrnandate} in Article 300-A^{of the Constitrltion lt follows} "rtnii..,O tnit ,tturpt^{of the appellant to take ayay} ?^{part of} p."ti,,ii "i'gratuity .or^{even leave encashment without} any sitatutory^{provlslon and under the tlmb -age of} acnriri;:rative^{instruction cannotbe countenanc(')d'}

1,'. Ii hardly^{needs to be emphasized that.thee:<ecutive} instr,rct ons'^{are not having statutorycharacter and'} tn!,:.lio",^{cannotbe tern ed as "law" withinthe} ,",ri',iil,1bf^{the aforesaidArticle 300-A' on the basis of} ;fi ; tircular,^{which is not havingforce- of aw' the} uiri.f ,,nt^{cannotwithhold even a part of pensionor} g[ti, iy ni ;e^{noticed above,so far as stat' stc)rvRules} J." ,,,u."rn"d,^{there is no provisionfor witrholding} ;;^{tir.or gratuity in the given situation. Hird there} [.,,i ,nV^{srich provision in theseRules'the position} wo tlcl have^{beendifferent'}

'fher Division Bench of erstwhile AP^{High Court} vide ats order^{dated L7'O3'2OL6in W'P'No'8201of 2016} very clearly'^{held that the Tribunal had rightly r:ome to} the conclr.rsion^{that temporary service shall be counted} as^{qualify'ing service for the purpose of pension under} Rules 13 and^{14 of the AndhraPradesh Revised Pension} Rules, n.98'O.

ThCriud q ment dated 23.O8 .20L7^{tnCivilAooeals} thn umb ers^{10805of20L7and} No.1oEQ$-- of^20L7wt

7

/

10807 of 2OL7 reDorted in (2019) 10 SCC 542, in Habib Khan v State of Uttarakhand at^paras 6 and 7 ,t is

observed as under:

"6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules had been struck down by a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab. The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was negatived by this Court. The matter came up for consideration before this Court, once again, in Punjab SEB versus Narata Singh. While dealing with the said question this Court in Para 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perFectly^justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between "temporary and officiating service" and workcharged service on the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for purposes oF computation of "qualifying service" for grant of pension.

As already observed, the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, discussed above. If that is so, we do not see as to why the period of service rendered on work-charged basis by the appellants should not be counted for purposes of computation of "qualifying service" for grant of pension. The pari materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh we do not find any room for taking any other view except to hold that the appellants are entitled to reckon the period of work-charged service for purposes of computation of "qualifying service For grant of pension

8

W,3 orce:r accordingly, allow^{these appeals and s3t aside} th3 lrrt)ugned orders^{passed by the High Court,"}

Ther tt,eview Petition^{(C) No.9 of 2O18 filed before} the Apex Court Aggrieved^{by theorders dated} 23.O8.?.O]-'.7^passed in Civil^{AppealNo' 1O8O6 of llo17 in} Habib Kharr v State of Uttarakhand^{was dismis;sed by} the Apex^t!ourt vide orders^{dated 16.O1.2O18}

L2. In W.P.No.L425 of 2OI9 under .^similar circu m s'taltges, the^{Division Benchof theHiqlr Court} considetcd--the^{isue whe} the oast servl ces. of the aoplicanLJ2Iior to their^{reoularization can be-!a!en into} considejalign for the DurDose^of ,)ivision Be nch in it:; iudqment^{dated 15.1O.2O19 referrinlr to the} iudomejlllof the^{ADex Court reDorted in (2OO1) 10 SCC} 473 Sta!e,- of Tamil^V T.N. Req stration Deoartm^ent Ministejlt-l- Serv^{ice Associationat oaras 9} 10 .and 11 held helC!!!der:

"9. ljirrrilar view was taken^{by a Division []enr h of the} High Orturt of ludicature^{at Hyderabadfor the Stateof} Tel,algana and the State^{of AndhraPradesh in State of} Anrlhi: Pradesh V. M.^{Raja Rao and also tl-'e K'arnataka} High^(.ourt in B.H. Karnataka^{Power-[rarsmission} Corp o^-ation Limited.

//

9

sN.i

-,,

1O. In view of the iudoments of the Aoex Court and other Hi^qh Courts referred to above, we are of h vt at the of th a rnnliarr+ who is th resDondent hereinrior to his ization h onside r Eensionarv^benefits.

It is also to be noted here that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6524 of 2014 and batch dated 74.1L.2014 were not challenged and they have become final. Therefore, once the orders of the Tribunal are not challenged and have become final, there is no other option for the authorities except to implement the same."

The Aoex Court in the iudo ment reDorted in

(202o ) 1 SCC^(L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others- at oara 36 held a u nder:

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite oF having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the workcharged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service

l0

\

reqL l,rrlv before attaining the^{age of superannuation.} The',r:;rall be entitled to^{receive the pensiorras; if they} hAJC-J'etired^{from the reqular establishmentand} the s]lrvices rendered bv^{them riqht from the dav} the)t__ ente red the work-cha roed establi ghal!-tLe counted as oualifyino service for ouroose ofJrgl!Sion,"

t4. A slt!!-ilar view was^{aken bv} e Aoex Cou r in the iudome.El-^riated 18.O2.2 O22 in Petition^for Soecial Leave to ,A.DDea I^{(C) No.tlogl2022in the S} f G uia rat- and thers v Talsibh ai Dhaniib^hai .^Patel,

o ervrnq e_s_follqtvsi

"It s u,rfoi-tunate that the State continLred^{to l:ake the} s(rrvi:€s of the respondent^{as an ad-hoc flr:10 years} and tlrr:reafter now^{to contendthat as the services} ren,jered by the respondent^{are ad-hoc, he is not} entltlo(l to^{pension/pensionarybenefit. The Sitat"lcannot} br:^perrritted to take^{the benefit of its own wrong. To} tak,: :he Services continuously^{for 30 yei:lrs and} tf,e"eirft:er to contend that an^{employe'-'v"hohas} re:nil,:re d 30^years continues^{service shall notbr,r eligible} for p,r;15166 is nothing^{but unreasonable.As a welfare} S1.ate, the State as^{such ought not to have takerr sucha} startrJ.

In^r.l-e llresent case,^{the High Courthas; not committed} an) 3r'or in directing^{the State to pay pelsionary} benef l:s; to the respondent^{who has retirr':d after} rende rilg more than 30^{yearsservice.} Heni:rl, the Special^{Leave Petition stands disrniss;ed'"}

This Court opines that the specific^{plea ptrrt-forth} by the re:;pondents that the^{petitioner is eligible only}

ll

I I I

for countang their services from the date of her regularization as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.L994 is untenable in view of the law and the observations laid down by the Apex Court and other. Courts in the various judgments(referred to and extracted above) and the petitioner cannot be deprived of her constitutional right for counting the past sertice rendered by the petitioner on contract basis for the period from the year 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioner as per law, except by authority of law since pension is not a bounty, but property within the meaning of Articte 3OO_A of the Constitution of Indaa.

16. T tn n id a n a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned

t2

Assistant^{rSovernment Pleader for Services-IappearinE} on behalf^,cf the respondents.

elh€L..llourts( c) Ihejultsments of the^ADex Co referred tc, and extra cted above) and^aoarn n I isted

below:1

i) 2013 (12) SCC 210, dated^14.08.2O13 ii) Dirrision Bench of erstwhile^{AP High Cor.rrt vide} its order dated 17.03.2O16 in^{W.P.No.82O1of} 2016, iii) (:2019) 10 scc s42 iv)^'Ihe Review Petition^(C) No.g of^{2O18,, dated} 16,O 1.2018

v) (2001) 10 SCC 473 vi) (i2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) vii ) lPetition for Special Leave to^Appeal l.C)^No. LLA9,t 2022, dated 18.O2'2O22

d) Rule^1.13 and 14 of the^{AP RevisedPensiorrRules,} 198O⁽ referred to and extracted^{above) which clearly} indicates that^qualifying service of^aGovernment servant sh,all commence from^{the date he or she takes} charge of the^post to which^{he or she is first aplrointed} either substantively or^{in an officiatingor tenlporary} capacatll.

The Writ Petition is allowed and the^resplrndents are directed to consider^{the requestof the petitioner to} count the l:emporary^{service rendered on contrar:tbasis}

v,l

l)

by the petitioner for the period from the year 06.02.2002 to 24.04.2006 in the Respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service to sanction pension gratuity and other retiremeht benefits as per revised pension rules of 198O in accordance to taw, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to cost.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

ctge9,q.

ro,

//TRUE COPY//

sD/- M.OSMAN ALt BA|G ASSISTANT R+ISTRAR

sEcTtgN oFFtcER

The Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Government of Telangand, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The_Commissioner, Department of Aytish, Government of Telangana, Floor TSGLI Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

The Secretary, Finance and Planning Departmenl, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

One CC to SRl. CH GANESH Advocate [OPUC]

5 Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

Two CD Copies

KKS

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT'

DATED:1 6lA6'12025

ORDER

WP.No.8275 of²⁰²³

:=--
I L =;:*.:-
".:'
\t'.
:,
'i;, \
o) NI, :.. i!
:. ti
t1 N
i
li. .,!
t
-,,_i r. : r. ,
'-i'.': :.1:::: .. '

ALLOWING -THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCISTS

{
b
?,7