17 1 8 1 e lnmmS8nSMfr818mSrllecnwe9m O 9 O n dd 551 1 r l 1 0 eee CWP Nol4394 of2010 619 P In theHi8h Court ofPunjaband Haryanaat Chandigarh Dateofdecisionl 11052011 1 11 CWP No 14394of2010 MajorSinghKhatkar andothersVs StateofPunjaband others 21 CWP NoA188of2011 f j Bhupinder SinghDhillon and others Vs StateofPunjaband others 0 31CWPN012748 of2010 C3 SodagarSahahGuptaand othersVs StateofPunjaband others C5 41CWPN0194900f2010 andothers Vs StateofPunjaband another Z 451CWPNo 17961of2010 0 ChamanLal Sethiand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 41 61 CWP Nol8486 of2010 L3 Z AmarNath Bhutani andothersVs Stateof Punjaband others ao f71 CWP No 18846of2010 sm ChanderKanta and others Vs StateofPunjabandanother Z 81 CWP Nol9964 of2010 0m Kidar Na Shannaand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 1J91CWP Nol9969 of2010 t Ajit Singhand others Vs StateofPunjaband another 101 CWPNo 2457 of2011 c Sat Pal Vs The StateofPunjaband others OlllCWP No4647of2011 1 Ajit Singhand others Vs State ofPunjaband another e IllWLV444mk41eGUSm U 4 S Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document t el2r 7 5Ul 1 0 59 er 815 ht 4 e41401I4m4461056449159ertl 00 7 4 e4 CWP N014394 of2010 29 r 4121CWP No 4166 of2011 GurcharanSin8hBedi Vs StateofPunjaband others A431 CWP N04123of2011 GurcharanSinghand others Vs StateofPunjaband another i141 CWP No2975 of2011 RameshKumari Vs StateofPunjabandanother m 151CWPN0 2886 of2011 MangalSinghand others Vs Stateof Punjaband another 0 C0 A161CWP NoA305 of2011 C5 Charanjit SinghVs StateofPwb and others I Z CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI LY Presentl Mr RK Arora MrYM MrSameer Sachdeva Ms I Alka Chatra MrNikas Chatrath Mrik SinghMr KPS SandhuMrTribhawan SinglaMrGS Bal Mr Harinder Sharma MrSKArora MrAnil ChopraMrunny Singlaand Z MrDeepakGuptaAdvocates for the petitioners Cll Mruneet GuptaAddl Advocate General Punjabwith MsCharu Tuli SeniorDAG Punjabfor therespondents a7 Z PERMOD KOHLI J Controversy in all these writ petitionsis common ased upon identical factsand same questionoflaw The petitionersare clairningbene8t of the revised pay scales 4 with effect from 1906971 the date when the similarly situated governmentemployees were held entitled to the revised pay scales on completion of five years of service These petitioners were denied bene8t e IVeWUrn1651e11 eOWlI4GSr1C00404 7l 10WS I Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1t1 4 1 0reWS74eJSllWWKIoW4vreIWrnreS 7 r eIbI OII4WVI 2 V n 4e7 9CIs9141059wAmwInwOv0 01141s10 0s4 1el4141 r i I CWP No4394 of2010 3 thoughlater a11 of them were grantedthe benefit with effect from 1071975 This controversyearlier came up before this Court in CWP No2208 of 1989 Gekh Raj Khera and others Vse State of Punjab and 1 anotherl This writ petitionwas allowed vide judgmentdated 240312009 withthefollowing directionsl In view of the abovelegaland factualposition t this petitionsucceedspartially are 0 directedto extendthe bene8tof thePayrevision in 0 0 case of petitionerswe l l 1971 instead of C5 167975 Theyare furtherdirectedto fix the pay scale of the such of the petitionerswhose r Z unrevisedpay falls between two stagesin the new r time scale in the revised scale in the ext stage e Theprocessof flxation of pay be completed within Z r a period of four months from the date certifled Z r copyof this order is served upon the competent Qo r The benefit be releasedin mw Z favour of the within a periodof two Om rnonthsthereafter 1 24012009 OPERMODKOHLO JGE 1 It is common case of the parties all the petitioners are me by the directions contained in Lekh Raj Kheras case lpra9 noticedhereinabove However leamed counsel appearingfor the Stat has reservationin regard to grantof relief to these writ petitionersparticularlythose who approached the Court aRer a long ormewden ltll441266suaan a Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document s en 01 1r 41 9611 e e 111 9 f 914 8 n r en n10a4W 47641144OdIPdvr9oV V7 M 0947OIl VW 4OOrO9Pe 0900 1 1n r 4ela4141mv Skvli2Oe40vl11r3noeV dnc 4WOnrAMw61 er 001 4 e nn 1 e CWP No4394 of2010 4 delayfor seekingthe relief As a matter of fact all the petitioners are seeking ofthe judgmentof Lekh Raj Kheras case for their respective benefits In view ofthe objectionraised by the on thequestion6fdelaythesewrit petitions were heardthoughprincipally all the writ petitionsare covered by the judgment renderedin Lekh Raj Kheras case The Statehas relied upon various which are noticed hereunder 0 C0 In the case of RegionalManager APe SRTC Vse N I 0 and others 200811 Supreme Court Cases 210 Honble I the SupremeCourt declined the pmyer for regularisation of dailywagers Z Sr from the date of their initial engagementin the year 1986 in the writ 2 CC petitionflled in the year 1999 on the groundof delayand laches though t I theywere entitledto such reliefunder an ofthe Coun C Z In the case of Nadia DLstt Prary School CouncU and 0 another Vse Sristidhar Biswas and others 6200712 SupremeCourt mao Cases 779 the Court declined therelief on thegroundof delayin thematter Z of when the writ petition was Sled aftera periodof nine yearse CL The relevant observations are contained in paragraph11 of the judgment which are asunderl 11 In the presentcase the panelwas prepared lll 9ee 1980 and the petitionersapproached the court in 1989 after the decision in Dibakar Pal Such persons should not be givenany benefit by the court when theyallowed more than nine yearsto 4 Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e 79 1j 1 2 1 r 14 vS d n n e4nm4whM04S018418v6rheWpWp1 1v eVA rv 11Va119419en419n0IeOIa ln no l 1 e2t 1 l Iol I1NIaIAr5MWaWa eneOr5 e s n9 n e lnha M 9V r9114 4m aem I e o n v e n 5 e CWP Nol4394 of2010 53 elapse Delay 1S verysignificantin matters of granting relief and court cannot come to the rescue of the personswho are not vigilantof their rights1 Therefore the Vlew taken by the High Court the delay of nine years cannot be COUntenanced In EasternCoalfields Limited Vs DugalKumar 14 Court Cases 295 avrit petitionwas Oled aRer a decadeclaiming 0 0 the benefit of additional quantity of coal allotted to the company 10 years C9 beforethe date of filingof the wr petitionIt has been held th inordinate I delayon the part of the petitionerin makingthe motion for a writ is an Z groundfor refusingto exercise discretion under Article 226 of r theConstitutionofIndia I In the case of SS Balu and another vse State of Kerala and r others 2 SupremeCourt Cases 479 Honble the SupremeCoun Z made followingobservationsto denythe relief when there is inordinate 01 delay 1a7 Z t4 17 It is also wesettled principleof law that Il delaydefeatsequity The Govemment order was 1 issued on 15ele2002 The appellantsdid not 81e any writ applicationquestioningthe legalityand 4eW validitythereof On aRer the wdt petitionsfiled by others were allowed and the State of Kerala prefened an appealthereagainstthey impleaded themselves as It is now a trite 15Wv2elmm4wCoWCIAlW6411I vVolA5n Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 116 1510 Ir 1 S 9 4aealn9nsrIrvn e4v9 SoelrWV4 ne97n e J vn e enUtnoea 2SesrnVOveey0M rm41U105032releSIerVUr 6l Wo191Yo VI e nnn e4e0 nll o or n r 1 9d CWP N014394 of2010 6 law that where the writ petitionerapproaches the HighCourt afler a longdelayereliefs prayedfor rnaybe denied to them on the groundof delayand lachesirrespectiveof the fact theyare similarly situatedto the other candidates who obtain the benefit It is thus not possible for US to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or C theCossion to appointthe appellantsat this 0 0 stage In NDMC v Pan Singh this Court heldl I SCC p283para16 C5 I In the case of Shiv Dass Vse Union of India and others r Z 200799 SupremeCourt cases 274 the writ petitionerwas denied the pensionin he year 1983 He filed a writ petitionin the High tr Ct Courtin the year 2005 This writ petitionwas dismissedby theHigh Coun I C the questionof delayand laches The Honble SupremeCourt Z 4r while remandingthe matter to the High Court made the following C Cr observationsl 2 Z 10 In the case of pensionthe cause of action 1 actuallycontinues from month to month That 1 however cannot be a gmlnd to overlook delaylll 9 filingthe petition It would dependupon the fact of each case If petition1S filed beyond a Ve reasonable periodsay three years normallythe Court would rejectthe same or restrict the relief vvhich could be grantedto a reasonableperiodof 4 nsaemwweerho 90 0 Ill Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e1 1n vl n1 7 15 4 2ei9 14 5 914 ee 4n19466e6Mv48vM0epsw 04n06Wev WWV1490 4 y1 91 I l 1 e CWP N014394 of2010 Cl 4 1 aboutthree years The HighCourt did not examine whetheron merit the appellanthad a case If on rneritsit would have found thattherewas no scope for interference it would have dismissed the writ petition on thatseore alone Learned counselappearing for the have also 1 referredto various judgmentof this Court and also the government instructions in regardto ofthe judgments ofthe HighCourt 0 c TheStateofPunjabissued instructionsdated17N72002 to all the Financial I Cossioners thePrincipalSecretariesandthe Adminisuative Secretaries 0 tothe Governt ofPunjab The instructions are as under Z i3 Wherever the righ of the partieshave been 2 settledby a judgmentof the Court the State has r takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat I judgmenteven uptothe highestcourt of the land Z and thejudgmenthas attained flnality then the oo State must acceptthejudgmentand implement it in Z its true spiritand command There is implicit 4z tl obligationon the part of the State to grantsame 1 relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim wasbasedupn identical factsand pointof law ii9 The State Governmentshall as expeditiously ea as possiblein any case not later than four months react and respond toa legalnoticelrepresention servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal om awamleean040r4letW r e IrSWr491alI Go Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 1e 1 nnrwWO1w4164mltwe964 4 r 114r0154OWY944009 WlAeOnr9 0n 5 4v el 4V1610Oell6w0e00 420eV v I 61r h r n1114ec s4Vv p oe4 4 0 e 1 r 1 CWP No14394 of2010 89 e of his gevancelgrantof relief which has been granted to his coemployeesimirly situated 111 furtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court Unless 1 for reasons to be indicated in the reply the State feels compelled to denysuch relief Needless to pointout that denialmust neither be evasive nor 1 intended to circumvent the ordersofthe Coun CC iii9 In the event such an employeeis compelled 0 U to approach the court of law the court 0 awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a I petitionthen the incurred bythe State t Z includingthe costslinterestpaidin 81rtheranceto 5t V2 the ordersofthe Court should be recoveredfrom CC r theerring I C3 6iv The concernedquartersofthe Govemmentare Z expected to work out the details in furtheranceto CD the above directions and issue pervasivebut W2 Z definite instructionsto all its foith to ensure compliance 1 In the case of State of Iarnataka c Orse Vso Ce Lalitha 4e 200692 SCC 747 Honble the Supreme Coun while considering theright 5 ofsimilarlysituatedpersons observedas underl 18 Service evolved by this Court frorn time to time postulatesthat all persons SSl054O1191 emSen44r0M6oeal 4SIenr4nmaww1h4r l e Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 J 7 Ilh rll e 1 66m l 4 51 1 1 i 5 r4 4 w4r1aeniV4ef36WIvr416n7eeInllvrow ae40NeeonPl4mSl4 11 e e P n O 6 i 14 6Uv Il M I0 S66HOb 074Aer7144 cO 4 n0r 4s o 4 4ov v l vm 44 wrV7m I l l n1W 4r e 7 Il CWP N014394 of2010 9 e similarlysituated should be treated similarly Only becauseone person has approached the court that would not mean that persons simiIarly situated should be treated differentlyeeneeene 31 I haveheardtheleamed counselfor thepartiesat lelh The petitioners are similarlysituatedas thewrit petitioners 111 m Lekh Raj Kheras case 6supra However it 1S a fact that these writ Ir have this Court after the judgmentof Lekh Raj 0 0 Kherascase for the similarrelief The Statewhile concedingthat theyare C5 similarly situated resistedtheir claim onlyon the groundof delayin filing I the writ petitions The judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case has attained r Z finalityand the State has the sarnevide its circular dated 1 18082010 issuedbythe District Education Offlcer Gurdaspurto all the Masters etc The relevant instructions for its I C1 are as underl Z As per letter under reference directions were m issuedto draw the arrears of the concemed with 7 Z regard to grantofpayscale from l11971 instead Om of 16771975in terms of the reportof the Kothari Cossion within a periodof 15 daysNow Civil Writ Petition N0806212010has also been disposed 4ee of by the Court in terms of the decision in Lekh Raj Kheras case Therefore if any petitionerof this writ petitionis pertaing toyour school the due beneStbe givento him within 10 days and Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document j 111 e 1 8e71 1 4 90464r9i49W04414441894440Pmno 140eooemuOlwnGIV401S19UVPcl9 0900 0m 1 1 Oren 461e 1r03 4 45anr4 5d14S4mInOsvAr7 3 9e 10or ecSr t1VmrV P1 ne7WIV 4 8 4 P l eeW CWP No4394 of2010 103 1 receiptbe sent to this ofSce While releasing paymentto the petitionerthe Head of the School will ensure that the benefit has been correctly 1 givento thepetitioner as per instructionslrules If due to the negligence of the school Head any petitionerremained deprivedfor paymen4the 1 concerned School Head will be for the C same 0 C0 From the above circular it is established that the State has I 0 thejudgmentqua writ petitioners in Lekh Raj Kheras case I Instructions dated 1772002 referredto above clearlydepictsGovemments Cr Z policyto implementthejudgmentsattainingfmalitynot only qua the writ 2 0 but also in respectto all 11011 as well who are I similarlysituatedand may be entitledto similar relief These instnlctions C1 are generalin nature and applyin all such cases wherever the judgment Z Cr againstthe State has attained Snality Despitethese instructions having 00 been issued in the year 2002 the Stateis actingin derogationthereofand 1m3 Z similarlysituatedpersonsare leR with no other optionbut to approachthis 1m Court time and again This has the effect of burdening this Court with unnecessary litigationand chockingthejusticedeliverysystem It may also be noticed that not oonlythe Goveent itself has decided to implement the re judgmentin respect to all nHarlysituatedpersons a Division Bench of this Court also issued generaldirections in this regardin the case of Satbir SinghVse State of Haryana 2002 29Service Cases Today 354 The relevant directions are contaid in paragraph19 of this judgmentwhich Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 n t 5 ln2 r t 1 1 11 6 1 4168448t49hd804660Ap4e8nP4l199vwmnVnV44014V4I eu n 07 Mt 5l5 4 n 114n 4Al4eI 494lfvnOr1mawO r or9 sav e o 6 9 r 0 4 e VU V 9 0 IOVlre 6 e e l e e 6 i 1 aO CWP Nol4394 of2010 119 r are as under 19 Be that as it may particularlyin the aforee referred premiseswe still feel that it is th boundendutyof the Court to issue the following directions to the Statein the largerpubliclnterest andfor properadministrationofjusticel 1 o Wherever the righ of the pars have been Q settledby a judgmentof the Court the Statehas 0 C3 takenall remediesavailableto it in law againstthat I 9 judgment even uptothe highestcourt 6f the land I and the judgmenthas attained finality then the Z Statemust acceptthejudgmentand implement it in Ct its true spiritand command There is implicit I obligation on the part of the State to grant same relief to other membersof the cadre whose claim Z was basedupon identical factsandpointoflaw Ql iil The StateGovernmentshall as expeditiously 3 Z as possiblein any case not later than four months Qm react and respondto a legal servedupon it by any of its employees in redressal of his of relief which has been Oee grantedto his coemployeessar situated in furtheranceto thejudgmentof the Court UnIess for reasons to be indicated in the replythe State feels compelledto denysuch relief Needless to eaessmemztaanZam511414r41a6U6r0netl rOlUeSunoeUeIO1191r4e8110Oers tl n Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71665 1 0e 5117 nI n P el V 1 E OWd4e109WW6494401mmoe4IIr 0041SvP4no0 elWvrYn w1r e e IJ e 1 e 4P 7i cew1494Wr4Ci54904meU65e04497V646rIOWV4e1ra9V 9l I 7 41 13 j CWP Nol4394 of2010 120 pointout that denial must neither be evasive nor intended to circumvent the orders ofthe Court ciiil In the event such an employeeis compelled 1 to approach the coun of law whereuponthe court awardsinterestandlor costs while allowingsuch a petitionthenthe incurredbytheState n including the costslinterestpaid in furtheranceto r theordersofthe Court should be recovered from 0 0 theeningofficers ivo The concernedquartersof the Goveent are 0 I expected to work out the details in furtheranceto Z the above directions and issue pervasivebut 2 definiteinstructions to all its forthwith C er to ensure compliance 33 I C3 It is a maUer of concem that the above directions issuedbythis Z et Court as far back as in the year 2002 are beingOoutedwith impunityThe 0 State has failed to dischargeits obligationto grant relief to similarly W2 Z situatedpersons at its OW11 Ievel Under such circumstances it cannot be C pennitt8d to pleaddelayand lacheswhere the Stateitself is responsible for unnecessary litigationwhich could beconveniently tackled at administrative level on account of concluded and bindingjudgments of this Court and the C Honble Supreme Court Apart from the above it has also corne on record that after Lekh Raj Kheras case a number of writ petitionscame to be filed in the year 2009 and 2010 which have been decidedby this Court grantingthe e 2Wlweee4n1wneoUv04 ero Ps Il 40 ewweav400a Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 1 ll 115 i f 111 1l ll 4 e 1 10 n947larwnv4vn9910 1rIvSm490 e IlIrv ne ronbezn6avmWSfulhAWsraOre19rO 7oVlM9r034891 WI4r 4vpnv0n 0 1 CWP Nol4394 of2010 133 r similarrelief as in Lekh Raj Kheras case and the State has chosen not to preferany appealagainstthosejudgments The questionof ree8xion of the salary ln fact gives a 1 recuning cause of action to the govemmentemployee as eveiy month he loosessome amount from his salaryor retiral benefltson account of wrong fixation of salary Thus the doctrine of delayand laches cannot be 1 permitted to be invoked as thumbrule in every case The judgments cited CC onbehalfofthe Statemostlypertained to matters seniorityand 0 Co policymatter In C Lalithas case supralHonble the SupremeCourt C5 has clearlyleld that similarlysituated persons should not be treated I Similarly Ul Shiv Dasss case supralcited on behalf of the Cr Z Honble the SupremeCourt has againclearlyheld that in r casesofpensionat themost reliefcould be restrictedto threeyears CC A Full Bench of this Court in the case of SarojKumari and I CO others vse The state of Punjaband others 1998 59 Services Law Z 266 have examinedthe questionof reeflxa86n in the context of CO delayin approaching theCourt whereinit haslbeenheld as underl 7 Z 9 Learned counsel for the petitioners submiued CL thatin case of wrongfLrationof pay to which an employee may be entitled under the relevant rules instructions or even on account of a judgment ee thereis no questionofanylimitation as the wrong paymentof salaryevery month is a COlltlIlUing wrongagainsthim which givesnse to recuuing causeof ac8on eachtime he is paidsalarywhich is 0wrnnreewxle I4111S PoOol I IeIlI e Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 5 t l 415l 1 L1 71 n 3 M I l vcr VA 7y84t9AWH4crrjrrewprm074a4m1 6e4900el4rWre 9 J14 1 1 659 0e4249401Grnr4n4v16311A40ke16eibwiatm4uewn1ntuosOrrzaerevekxu mnrOeO eeo r1 Pr9 P1 CWP Nol43940f2010 141 C not computedaccordingto the relevant rules instructions or ajudgmentthe employeesin such a case has a rightto ask for a direction to the State 1 veent or to the employer to fix the pay correctlyrightfrom dayone in accordancewith the relevantrules and instructions However while 1 granting the relief of arrears of pay etc the same 0 can be confrned to three years and two months 0 0 which is the periodof limitation providedfor I C5 gettinga relief of realisationof arrears in a civil I suit Z 14 For the foregoingreasons we are of the view 2 that in cases whereonlyfixation of pay according I to the relevant Euleslinstructionsor a judgment 1S prayedfor thewrit petition ct be dismissedat Zl the thresholdon the groundof delayandlachesbut m the paymentof arrears can be restricted to a VW2 Z reasonableperiod Te years and two months rJm would be considereda reasonableperiodas that 1S the periodfor which a person Call ask for the paymentofarrearsbeforea Civil Court tt The cause of the petitioners is a recuningcause Thils the ratio of the judgmentof th Full Bench is applicableon all four corners to the factsof this case Petitionersrightct be defeatedmerelyon account of delayand laches thoughthe reIief for arrears can be restrictedto a period rln4Ovm4n719T1 94e64A171Oe VVneA Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 l 1 72 14 n21 n Se49 2 a72641W28728 Ptn 0 14 2 7 rm J r CWP Nol4394 of 2010 150 r ofthreeyears as observedby Honble the Supreme Court and Full Benclof thisCourt referredto hereove In view of the abovecircumstancesthesepetitionsare allowed 1 ln termsof the judgmentin Lekh Raj Kheras case However the Claim for arrears lS restrictedto threeyearspreceding the Slingof the writ petitions No costs m It is Slrther directed that all simarly situated govemment may be grantedthe relief in terms of Lekh Raj Khems case 0 Co thoughrestrictingclaim of arrears to thme years It would be prudentand I for the Govemment to issue a circularlnotification in this C9 regard as earlyas possibIe to preventfurtherlitigation on this question Z A copy of this order be placedon the flle of other connected 5t 2 writ petitions C e X 11052011 PERMOD KOHLo Z BLS JUDGE t Ol le t 7 Note1Whether to be referredto the Reporter2YES Z Ll e S9 CD 5 tl rrf e9r 4She441a7eaZtalIl 060nl Radhika 2014.05.31 17: 04 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document