Supreme Court of India
Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 5 November, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
2024 INSC 832 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ________ OF 2024
[@ DIARY NO. 4407 OF 2023]
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 OF 2019
MUKUL KUMAR TYAGI …APPLICANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ________ OF 2024
[@ DIARY NO. 5682 OF 2023]
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 OF 2019
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. ________ OF 2024
[@ DIARY NO. 10291 OF 2023]
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9026 OF 2019
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23273 of 2023]
JUDGMENT
B.R. Gavai, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
1. Leave granted in appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 23273
Date: 2024.11.05
12:47:51 IST
Reason:
of 2023.
1
2. The present applications/appeal have been filed praying
for a direction to the concerned authority to re-appoint the
applicants on the post of Technical Grade-II (Electrical) in
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as “respondent-Corporation”) who were appointed
pursuant to the advertisement dated 6th September 2014, by
setting aside the termination letter dated 13th May 2018
issued by the respondent-Corporation against the applicants
herein.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present
applications/appeal are as given below:
3.1 The erstwhile Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board
under the Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948,
promulgated the U.P. State Power Parishad Operative
Employees Cadre Service Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter
referred to as “1995 Regulations”).
3.2 With the enactment of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Reforms
Act, 1999, the U.P. State Electricity Board ceased to exist
and was replaced by the respondent-Corporation.
3.3 The respondent-Corporation adopted the 1995
Regulations which prescribed the method of filling-up posts
2
of Technician Grade-II and set out the educationalqualifications in relation thereto.
3.4 By an office memorandum dated 29th January 2011, the
Board of Directors of the respondent-Corporation amended
the 1995 Regulations thereby prescribing that all
incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician
Grade-II would be liable to hold a Certificate of 80 Hours
Course on Computer Concepts (hereinafter referred to as
“CCC certificate”) issued by Department of Electronics and
Accreditation of Computer Courses (hereinafter referred to as
“DOEACC”) and would need to produce the same certificate
at the time of interview.
3.5 By an office memorandum dated 25th November 2011,
the respondent-Corporation provided that an equivalent
computer eligibility qualification to CCC certificate issued by
DOEACC would also be accepted.
3.6 On 6th September 2014, the respondent-Corporation
issued an advertisement, thereby inviting applications for
appointments against 2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II
(Electrical). Possession of CCC certificate or its equivalent
computer qualification certificate was one of the mandatory
3
educational qualifications prescribed in paragraph 2 of theadvertisement. In terms of paragraph 7 of the advertisement,
the candidates were required to submit the CCC certificate at
the time of interview.
3.7 On 8th November 2014, a written examination was
conducted and the applicants herein qualified the written
examination. The applicants herein, thereafter, appeared in
the interview conducted during the period from December
2014 to July 2015.
3.8 On 14th July 2015, the final selection list was prepared
and published. The applicants herein were issued
appointment letters.
3.9 On 25th July 2015, the unsuccessful candidates
preferred a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court
being Writ-A No. 41750 of 2015 and other connected
petitions seeking quashing of the select list dated 14th July
2015, and revision of the select list by excluding those
candidates who had obtained CCC certificate on dates
subsequent to 30th September 2014 as also those candidates
who did not possess CCC certificate as awarded by DOEACC,
4
since renamed as National Institute of Electronics andInformation Technology (hereinafter referred to as “NIELIT”).
3.10 Vide final judgment and order dated 7th October 2017,
the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court quashed the
select list in question insofar as it includes candidates who
do not hold a CCC certificate conferred or recognized by
NIELIT. Further, the Single Judge directed the respondents
therein to re-draw the select list restricting it to the
candidates who hold a recognized CCC certificate or a
qualification recognized in law as being equivalent thereto.
3.11 Accordingly, on 13th October 2017, the Electricity
Service Commission, UPPCL, directed the Chief Engineer(s)
and Superintending Engineer(s) to send the attested
photocopies of CCC certificates of selected candidates on the
2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II (Electrical) and to check
at their own level, whether the CCC certificate attached is
issued by an institution recognized by NIELIT (formerly
DOEACC) or its equivalent or not.
3.12 Thereafter, on 13th May 2018, the Electricity Service
Commission, UPPCL, published the list of candidates whose
selection was not found to be in accordance with the
5
eligibility as per the direction of the learned Single Judge ofthe Allahabad High Court contained in Writ-A No.
41750/2015 and other connected petitions. The aforesaid list
contained the names of the applicants herein.
3.13 Aggrieved thereby, the applicants herein filed a Writ
Appeal before the Allahabad High Court being Special Appeal
No. 585 of 2018 and connected petitions.
3.14 Vide final judgment and order dated 9th May 2019, a
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the
Special Appeals filed inter-alia by the applicants herein and
set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge. The Writ Petitions were dismissed. Further, the
respondents therein were directed to restore the position
relating to the entire process of selection including the
appointments of selected incumbents as that was prior to
acceptance of the writ petitions.
3.15 Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, a number of
appeals were filed before this Court.
3.16 Vide final judgment and order dated 16th December
2019 in Civil Appeal No. 9026 of 2019 and other connected
6
appeals titled Mukul Kumar Tyagi v. The State of UttarPradesh and Others1, this Court allowed the appeals and
set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division
Bench of the Allahabad High Court. In paragraph 71, this
Court observed that the direction of the Single Judge of the
Allahabad High Court, indicates that select list insofar as the
candidates, who had certificates from NIELIT/DOEACC was
not quashed, their position in select list was not disturbed
and select list was partly quashed only with regard to those
candidates, who did not have CCC or NIELIT certificate.
3.17 Thereafter, the applicants herein filed a Writ Petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution being Writ Petition (C)
No. 1144 of 2022 with a prayer for a direction to the
respondents therein to restore/re-instate them in their
respective positions in their services, as the termination was
against the true letter and spirit of the judgment dated 16th
December 2019 passed by this Court in the case of Mukul
Kumar Tyagi (supra).
3.18 This Court, vide order dated 30th January 2023,
dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the applicants herein,
1
(2020) 4 SCC 86 : 2019 INSC 1380
7
however, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, grantedliberty to the applicants to file an appropriate application in
the disposed of Civil Appeal (No. 9026 of 2019) with
connected matters and directed the Registry to entertain the
same.
3.19 In such facts, the present applications/appeal have
come up for hearing before this Court.
4. We have heard Shri Dama Seshadri Naidu, Shri Amit
Anand Tiwari and Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. We have also
heard Shri S.K. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and Electricity
Service Commission.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicants submitted that, as a matter of fact, vide Office
Memorandum dated 29th January 2011, the 1995
Regulations were amended thereby prescribing that all
incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician
Grade-II would be required to produce the CCC certificate
issued by DOEACC/NIELIT at the time of interview. It is
submitted that all such candidates who were selected in
8
pursuance to the said selection process and having the CCC
certificate on the date of the interview were eligible to be
continued. It is submitted that the interview process
continued for a long period from December 2014 to July
2015. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge of the
High Court vide its judgment and order dated 7th October
2017 had set aside the selection process only of such
candidates who did not possess the CCC certificate.
6. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the applicants that
the approach of the respondent-Corporation in setting aside
the selection process even of such candidates who possessed
the CCC certificate at the time of interview on the ground
that they did not possess the same on the last date of
application i.e. 30th September 2014 is totally erroneous.
7. Insofar as the plea of Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned
Senior Counsel is concerned, he submitted that, as per the
advertisement, even such of the candidates who did not
possess the CCC certificate at the time of interview but had
obtained the same prior to the last date of the interview i.e.
4th July 2015 are entitled to be continued in service and their
selection could not have been set aside.
9
8. Shri Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Corporation, on the contrary,
submitted that, it is a settled position of law that the
requisite qualification has to be obtained prior to the last
date of submission of application. It is submitted that, as
such, the candidates who possessed CCC certificate on the
date of interview but did not possess the same on the last
date of submission of application are not entitled to be
continued. It is therefore submitted that the respondent-
Corporation has rightly terminated the services of such of the
candidates.
9. The present applications arise out of peculiar facts and
circumstances. The Board of Directors of the respondent-
Corporation, vide office memorandum dated 29th January
2011, amended the 1995 Regulations which provided that all
incumbents seeking selection to the post of Technician
Grade-II would be required to hold the CCC certificate issued
by DOEACC/ NIELIT. The amended resolution required CCC
certificate to be mandatorily possessed by the candidates at
the time of interview.
10
10. By another office memorandum dated 25th November
2011, the respondent-Corporation provided that an
equivalent computer eligibility qualification to CCC certificate
issued by the DOEACC would also be accepted.
11. On 6th September 2014, the respondent-Corporation
issued an advertisement thereby inviting applications for
appointments against 2,211 posts of Technician Grade-II
(Electrical). The said advertisement provided two mandatory
qualifications. The first one being the High School or its
equivalent examination of Board of Higher Secondary
Education, U.P. passed with Science & Mathematics subjects
and All India/State Professional Certificate in Electrical
Trade. The second qualification required a CCC certificate or
its equivalent computer qualification certificate. As per
clause 7 of the said advertisement, merely permitting a
candidate to appear in the written test would not earn
him/her a right to selection. It was also provided that the
scrutiny of the certificates of the candidates would be carried
out at different levels.
12. In pursuance of the said advertisement, a written
examination was conducted on 8th November 2014. The
11
interviews were held from December 2014 to July 2015. The
final selection list was prepared and published on 14th July
2015.
13. Subsequent to the publication of the final selection list,
the unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection
process. The challenge was made on two grounds. Firstly,
such of the candidates who had obtained CCC certificate
after the last date of advertisement i.e. 30th September 2014
could not have been selected. Secondly, the candidates who
did not possess the CCC certificate as awarded by DOEACC/
NIELIT but submitted certificates from private institutions
with the self-certification about their equivalence to CCC
certificate issued by DOEACC/NELIT could also not be
selected.
14. It will be relevant to refer to the conclusions arrived at
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in its judgment
and order dated 7th October 2017, which read thus:
“CONCLUSIONS
In the end, the Court records the following
conclusions:-
1. A recognised qualification is an essential facet
of Article 16 of the Constitution.
12
2. No rights can be recognised in a candidate
aspiring to enter public service on the strength
of an unrecognized qualification or one granted
by an institution which is not conferred the
authority to grant the same in accordance with
law.
3. The qualification as prescribed by the
respondents does not merit interference at the
behest of the petitioners.
4. The decision of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation dated 23 November 2015 was an act of
ratification and therefore does not merit
interference.
5. The Commission failed to undertalce any enquiry
in respect of equivalence of qualifications. It
undertook a wholly perfunctory exercise and that
too prompted only by the interim directions of this
Court.
6. Even in this exercise no accepted or legally
sustainable norms were applied to adjudge the
equivalence of certificates.
7. The equivalence of qualifications cannot be
left to depend or rest upon a self certification of
candidates.
8. No certificate can possibly be accorded
equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed
towards its course content and syllabus.
9. None of the candidates holding other than
CCC certificates were shown to hold
qualifications recognisable in law. Their
inclusion in the select list has clearly tainted
the recruitment exercise. It has resulted in the
induction of candidates who were not entitled to
be selected or offered appointment.
10. Since their inclusion in the select list is
invalid and would consequently merit the select
list being redrawn, the petitioners are not liable
to be non suited on the basis of the cut off
marks prescribed by the Commission.
13
Accordingly and in light of the above
discussion and the conclusions recorded above, the
select list prepared by the respondents is rendered
unsustainable and must in consequence be set
aside.
The writ petitions preferred by the non selected
candidates are therefore allowed to the extent
indicated below. The Court negatives the challenge
to the decision of the Board of the Corporation
dated 23 November 2015 and the condition of
eligibility contained in the two advertisements. All
interim orders operating on the writ petitions shall
stand discharged in order to enable the Commission
to proceed in the matter in light of the directions
being issued herein after.
Writ Petition No. 18129 of 2017 shall stand
disposed of in light of the above and the directions
issued herein.
The select list drawn up pursuant to the
advertisements in question insofar as it includes
candidates who do not hold a CCC certificate
conferred or recognised by NIELIT is quashed.
The respondents shall in consequence
redraw the select list restricting it to candidates
who hold a recognised CCC certificate or a
qualification recognised in ‘law as being
equivalent thereto. The Commission shall as a
result of the above, reframe the merit list and
publish the results thereof afresh. All
consequences to follow.”
[emphasis supplied]
15. It could thus be seen that the learned Single Judge held
that a recognized qualification is an essential facet of Article
16 of the Constitution of India. It was held that no rights can
be recognized in a candidate aspiring to enter public service
14
on the strength of an unrecognized qualification or one
granted by an institution which is not conferred the authority
to grant the same in accordance with law. It was held that
the equivalence of qualifications could not be left to depend
or rest upon a self-certification of candidates. It was further
held that no certificate could possibly be accorded with
equivalence unless an enquiry is addressed towards its
course content and syllabus.
16. The learned Single Judge, in unequivocal terms, has
held that inclusion of such of the candidates who did not
possess CCC certificate had clearly tainted the recruitment
exercise. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Single
Judge had set aside the select list only insofar as those
candidates who did not hold the CCC certificate conferred or
recognized by DOEACC/NIELIT. The learned Single Judge
directed that the respondent-Corporation shall in
consequence redraw the select list restricting it to candidates
who hold a recognized CCC certificate or a qualification
recognized in law as being equivalent thereto.
17. Subsequent to the judgment of the learned Single
Judge, the Electricity Service Commission, on 13th October
15
2017, directed the Chief Engineer(s) and Superintending
Engineer(s) to send the attested photocopies of CCC
certificates of selected candidates and to check at their own
level, whether the CCC certificate attached is issued by an
institution recognized by DOEACC/NIELIT or its equivalent
or not. Subsequently on 13th May 2018, the Electricity
Service Commission published a list of candidates whose
selection was not found in accordance with the eligibility as
per the direction of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad
High Court. The said list also contained the names of the
candidates who were possessing the CCC certificate on the
date of their interview. Consequently, their services also
came to be terminated.
18. Various writ appeals came to be filed before the Division
Bench of the High Court. The learned Division Bench, vide
judgment and order dated 9th May 2019, held that the
finding of the learned Single Judge that possession of CCC
certificate from DOEACC/NIELIT was erroneous. It held that
for computer literacy, self-certification was always acceptable
and therefore, the CCC certificate having the self-certification
could very well be accepted. The Division Bench thereby
16
allowed the appeals reversing the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge and dismissing the writ petitions.
19. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
was carried to this Court in three appeals in the case of
Mukul Kumar Tyagi (supra). It will be relevant to refer to
the following observations of this Court:
“53. The candidates who had CCC certificate
from NIELIT/DOEACC and who were included in
the merit list dated 14-7-2015 were not affected
by the judgment of the learned Single Judge
dated 7-10-2017 [Prashant Kumar
Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of
2015, order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] since the list
was quashed only insofar as those candidates
included in the merit list who did not have CCC
certificate by NIELIT/DOEACC. The Division Bench
in the impugned judgment [Deepak Sharma v. State
of U.P. Special Appeal No. 585 of 2018, order dated
9-5-2019 (All)] has erroneously held that employer
after judgment dated 7-10-2017 [Prashant Kumar
Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of 2015,
order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] did not take into
consideration the CCC certificate
of DOEACC or NIELIT. The following are the
observations made by the Division Bench in this
regard:
“… Heard the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the rival parties. At the
threshold, it would be appropriate to
state that the employer after accepting
the judgment given by the learned Single
Bench has prepared a fresh select list
and, while doing so, the certificate issued
by DOEACC relating to “CCC” has not been
taken into consideration….”
17
54. The Division Bench was not correct in making
the above observations since neither the learned
Single Judge vide its judgment dated 7-10-2017
[Prashant Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No.
41750 of 2015, order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] directed
for not taking into consideration CCC certificate
by DOEACC nor Corporation or Commission
deleted those names from the merit list who had
CCC certificate from DOEACC.”
[emphasis supplied]
20. It can thus be seen that this Court has, in unequivocal
terms, held that the candidates who had CCC certificate from
DOEACC/NIELIT and who were included in the merit list
dated 14th July 2015 were not affected by the judgment of
the learned Single Judge dated 7th October 2017, since the
list was quashed only insofar as those candidates included in
the merit list who did not have CCC certificate by
DOEACC/NIELIT. This Court has, in unequivocal terms, held
that the learned Single Judge, vide its judgment and order
dated 7th October 2017, had neither restrained the
respondent-Corporation from taking into consideration the
CCC certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT nor had it
directed that the respondent-Corporation delete those names
from the merit list who had CCC certificate from
DOEACC/NIELIT. From paragraph 55 of the said judgment,
18
it would be clear that this Court was of the considered
opinion that the CCC certificate as mentioned in the
advertisement dated 14th September 2014 was CCC
certificate as granted by DOEACC/NIELIT.
21. A perusal of the said judgment of this Court would
reveal that this Court upheld the finding of the learned Single
Judge that the advertisement dated 14th September 2014 did
not envisage self-certification of the candidate of equivalence
to CCC certificate. It further held that the self-certification by
the candidates of their computer qualification was not
sufficient to treat them having passed the required
qualification. It will further be relevant to refer to the
following observations of this Court in the said case:
“71. The above direction indicates that select list
insofar as the candidates, who had certificates
from NIELIT/DOEACC was not quashed, their position
in the select list was not disturbed and select list
was partly quashed only with regard to those
candidates, who did not have CCC
or NIELIT certificate. The object or purpose of the
direction was to scrutinise the qualifications of
those candidates, who have claimed equivalent
certificate. The above direction of the learned
Single Judge was only for the purpose to
scrutinise the qualification of those candidates,
who are found possessing equivalent computer
qualification so as to retain their names in the
select list. After the judgment of the learned Single19
Judge dated 7-10-2017 [Prashant Kumar
Jaiswal v. State of U.P. Writ A No. 41750 of 2015,
order dated 7-10-2017 (All)] , the Commission in
revising the merit list accepted the guidelines given
under the Government Order dated 3-5-2016. The
guidelines prescribed under the Government Order
dated 3-5-2016 are as follows:
“(a) The qualification of High School or
intermediate examination with an
independent subject or Computer Science
from Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar
Pradesh or from any Institution/Education
Board/Council established by the Central
or any State Government.
(b) If any candidate has obtained diploma
or degree in Computer Science then he
shall also be eligible to be recruited as
Junior Assistant/Stenographer.”
72. Thus, in the revised select list apart from
candidates, who had CCC certificates
from DOEACC/NIELIT, the candidates who were
covered under guidelines dated 3-5-2016 were
also treated as equivalent to CCC and were given
place in the merit list subject to marks secured
by them in the written test and interview.”
22. It can be seen that this Court held that the object and
purpose of the direction was to scrutinize the qualifications
of those candidates, who had claimed equivalent certificate.
It was only for the purpose to scrutinize the qualification of
those candidates, who were found possessing equivalent
computer qualification so as to retain their names in the
select list. It is further clear that the direction given by the
20
learned Single Judge was applicable, apart from the
candidates who were having CCC certificate from
DOEACC/NIELIT, to the candidates who were covered under
the guidelines dated 3rd May 2016 and were also treated as
equivalent to CCC certificate. Ultimately, this Court upheld
the finding of the learned Single Judge and held that there
was no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned
Single Judge.
23. It can be seen from the said judgment that an appeal
was made to this Court that since number of vacancies were
still available, the candidates who were initially in the select
list dated 14th July 2015 and went out of the select list due to
redrawing of the select list, they could be accommodated.
However, this Court did not issue any direction in that regard
and permitted such candidates to make representation which
was to be considered by the respondent-Corporation.
24. It is thus clear from the aforesaid that such of the
candidates who were having CCC certificate issued by
DOEACC/NIELIT on the date of interview and who were part
of the select list dated 14th July 2015 could not have been
terminated by the respondent-Corporation.
21
25. It also appears that the respondent-Corporation has
been taking contradictory stands. Before the High Court, it
took a stand that not only such candidates having CCC
certificate issued by DOEACC/NIELIT but also such
candidates who had submitted certificate by self-certification
were also entitled to be considered. It is only now that the
respondent-Corporation is taking a stand that such of the
candidates who did not have CCC certificate on 30th
September 2014 i.e., the last date of application could not be
considered as eligible candidates. The stand is contrary not
only to its advertisement dated 6th September 2014 but also
to the office memorandum of the Board dated 29th January
2011 vide which the 1995 Regulations were amended.
26. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that services
of such of the candidates who were selected in the select list
dated 14th July 2015 and had produced the CCC certificate
at the time of the interview could not have been terminated.
We find that the respondent-Corporation has grossly erred in
terminating their services. At the same time, we are not
inclined to accept the contention of those candidates who did
not have CCC certificate even on the date of their interview
22
but have obtained the same subsequently. When the
advertisement as well as the 1995 Regulations required the
CCC certificate to be produced at the time of interview, if it is
permitted to produce the same subsequent to the date of
interview, it would be contrary to the advertisement and the
1995 Regulations.
27. It was also sought to be urged on behalf of the
respondent-Corporation that such a relief could not have
been granted by the present applications. We clarify that,
this Court itself vide order dated 30th January 2023, while
disposing of the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, granted a liberty to file an appropriate
application in disposed of CA No. 9026 of 2019 with
connected matters. This Court has subsequently observed
that, in peculiar facts and circumstances, if such application
was filed, the same would be entertained by the Registry of
this Court.
28. We therefore find that the present case is a fit case
wherein this Court should exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The respondent-Corporation has misinterpreted the
23
judgment of the learned Single Judge and terminated the
services of the applicants who were otherwise entitled to be
continued as per the judgment. It is further pertinent to note
that the view taken by the learned Single Judge has been
affirmed in unequivocal terms by this Court. We find that if
we fail to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India in these cases, it will be permitting
continuation of illegality committed by the respondent-
Corporation.
29. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The present applications/appeal are allowed;
(ii) Such of the applicants who found place in the select
list dated 14th July 2015 and who
possessed/produced the CCC certificate at the time
of their interview are directed to be reinstated
forthwith;
(iii) Though they would not be entitled to back wages for
the period during which they were out of
employment, they would be entitled to placement in
the seniority list as per their positions as in the select
list dated 14th July 2015 with continuity in service
24
with all consequential benefits including pay fixation,terminal benefits etc.; and
(iv) Application(s) of impleadment/intervention are
allowed.
30. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in
the above terms. No order as to costs.
…………………………J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…………………………..J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 05, 2024.
25