Gujarat High Court
Vipul Chandubhai Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 10 December, 2025
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 998 of 2023
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13196 of 2018
================================================================
VIPUL CHANDUBHAI PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 10/12/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh for the appellant, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for the respondent Nos.1 and 4 and learned advocate Mr.Alkesh N. Shah for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This Appeal was decided vide Judgment and Order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the Co- Page 1 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined ordinate Bench of this Court and the Appeal was dismissed, confirming the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition, whereby, the Writ Petition was also dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant had approached Hon'ble the Apex Court and Hon'ble the Apex Court passed the following order on 14th October, 2024 :
"Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
Leave granted.
In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the Division Bench has mentioned that the order dated 27th October, 2009 was never challenged by the appellant. Page 2 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined However, we find that in the order dated 6th July, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, it is specifically mentioned that the appellant had also challenged the order dated 27th October, 2009 apart from the orders dated 1st April, 2017 and 2nd June, 2017. However, the Division Bench proceeded on the footing that there was no challenge to the order dated 27th October, 2009 as is clear from paragraph 4 of the impugned order. Only on this ground, we set aside the impugned order dated 17th August, 2023 and restore R/Letters Patent Appeal No.998/2023 to its original number to the file of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The restored Appeal shall be listed before the roster Bench on 18th November, 2024. The parties, who have appeared before this Court today, shall be under an obligation to appear Page 3 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined before the Court on that date and no further notice shall be served upon them.
A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry of this Court to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, who shall ensure that the restored Appeal is listed on 18th November, 2024, as directed above, before the roster Bench.
The restored Appeal shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. All contentions of the parties are left open.
The Appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed on the above terms."
4. The brief facts of the case are as under : Page 4 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 4.1. The father of the Appellant was serving as a Peon since 1981 with the respondent-
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. Unfortunately, the father of the appellant expired on 14.12.2006.
4.2. The appellant-original petitioner submitted an application on 2nd February, 2007 for compassionate appointment as per the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 before the Gujarat Sub-ordinate Service Selection Board (for short 'the Board') along with necessary performa and consent letters of all other family members and other requisite details.
4.3. The application made by the appellant- Page 5 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined original petitioner was processed by calling Income Certificate from Mamlatdar and other details by the Board.
4.4. By order dated 27.10.2009, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that there is no financial hardship on account of the death of the father of the appellant as death come benefit of Rs.3,47,313/- was received in addition to the family pension of Rs.2,655/- with 50% Dearness Allowance and Medical Allowance of Rs.100/- totaling to Rs.4,082/- per month by the petitioner and his family members.
4.5. It appears that the appellant made another application for reconsideration of his Page 6 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined prayer for compassionate appointment in the year 2010, which was also processed by the respondents, however, no decision was taken for reconsideration of the request of the appellant.
4.6. The appellant thereafter, for almost six to seven years, did not take any action and representation was made only on 12.02.2017. 4.7. By letter dated 01.04.2017, the respondent No.1 informed the respondent No.2 to give appropriate reply to the appellant about the applicability of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, which in turn was forwarded by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3-Executive Engineer by letter Page 7 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined dated 02.06.2017. At this stage, the appellant filed the Writ Petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.07.2022 relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others Versus Smt. Parden Oraon reported in AIR 2021 SC 1876 and in case of N.C.Santosh Versus State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617 as there was enormous delay on the part of the appellant and it is not the vested right of the appellant to get the compassionate appointment, as the appellant did not challenge the rejection order dated 27.10.2009 till 2018 in the Writ Petition. Page 8 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has challenged the order dated 27.10.2009 in the writ petition as the application made by the appellant was never decided after appellant approached the respondents for reconsideration of the said order in the year 2010.
5.2. It was submitted that the appellant thereafter, has also made detailed representation on 12.02.2017 which is also not decided by the respondents and only communication was made to give a reply in view of the Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011, which would not be applicable in the facts of Page 9 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined the case as the father of the appellant has expired in the year 2006.
5.3. Learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh also referred to and relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 30th June, 2017 rendered in Special Civil Application No.10864 of 2015 in case of Prakashkumar Devjibhai Parmar Versus State of Gujarat and Others wherein, in similar facts, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It was submitted that while allowing the Special Civil Application No.10864 of 2015, the learned Single Judge referred to and relied upon the decisions in case of M.M.Kashyap Versus State of Gujarat Page 10 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined reported in 2008 (1) GLH 373 as well in case of Bhikhiben K. Baria Versus State of Gujarat reported in 2009-TLGJ-0-2172 and decision in case of Balvantbhai V. Chauhan Versus State of Gujarat and Others dated 19.03.2009 rendered in Special Civil Application No.701 of 2009, wherein, it is held that the application for compassionate appointment is required to be considered as per the Policy prevailing at the time of application and not as per the Policy prevailing at the time when application is decided. It was also held in the said decision that Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000 was made applicable as the father of the petitioner died on 01.12.2006 and it was held that income criteria was not required to be Page 11 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined taken into consideration while deciding the application for compassionate appointment. 5.4. It was therefore submitted that as the father of the appellant has also expired in the year 2006, applying the same decisions, the respondents are required to be directed to consider the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment as delay should not come in the way of the appellant to get the compassionate appointment.
6.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Alkesh Shah appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) State of West Bengal Versus Page 12 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Debabrata Tiwari reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 70642;
(ii) Canara Bank Versus Ajithkumar G.K. rendered in Civil Appeal No.255 of 2025;
(iii) Tinku Versus State of Haryana & Others rendered in Civil Appeal No.8540 of 2024.
6.2. Referring to the above decisions, it was submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decisions, the appellant is not entitled to compassionate appointment as a vested right. It was pointed out that from 2010 to 2017, the appellant did not take any action and as such, the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment has become a stale claim and the very purpose of granting compassionate appointment is frustrated. Page 13 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts emerging from the record, it appears that it is not in dispute that from 2010 to 2017, the appellant-original petitioner did not take any action to pursue the claim for the compassionate appointment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Versus Debabrata Tiwari (supra) has considered the Policy for compassionate appointment as under:
"7. The majesty of death is that it is a great leveller for, it makes no distinction between the young and the old or the rich and the poor. Death being as a consequence of birth at some point of time is inevitable for every being. Thus, while death is certain, Page 14 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined its timing is uncertain. Further, a deceased employee does not always leave behind valuable assets; he may at times leave behind poverty to be faced by the immediate members of his family. Therefore, what should be done to ensure that death of an individual does not mean economic death for his family? The States obligation in this regard, confined to its employees who die in harness, has given rise to schemes and rules providing for compassionate appointment of an eligible member of his family as an instance of providing immediate succor to such a family. Support for such a provision has been derived from the provisions of Part IV of the Constitution of India, i.e., Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering Page 15 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined the decisions in cases of (i) Sushma Gosain Versus Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468, (ii) Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, (iii) Haryana State Electricity Board Versus Hakim Singh reported in (1997) 8 SCC 85, (iv) State of Haryana Versus Ankur Gupta reported in AIR 2003 SC 3797, (v) Jagdish Prasad Versus State of Bihar reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301, (vi) I.G.(Karmik) Versus Prahalad Mani Tripathi reported in (2007) 6 SCC 162, (vii) Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2008) 11 SCC 384 and (viii) State of Jammu and Kashmir Versus Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in AIR 2006 SC 2743, laid down the following principles :
Page 16 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined "7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for
compassionate appointment makes a
departure from the general
provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of Page 17 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.
Page 18 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.
7.3. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position Page 19 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this Page 20 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. 7.4. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependents of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authority's decision in the matter."
9. With regard to the consideration of the application after delay of several years, Page 21 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed as under:
"7.5. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was Page 22 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee."
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the decisions on laches and undue delay in Page 23 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined case of (i) Lindsay Petroleum Co. Versus Prosper Armstrong reported in (1874) 3 PC 221,
(ii) Moon Mills Ltd. Versus M.R.Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay reported in AIR 1967 SC 1450, (iii) State of M.P. Versus Nandlal Jaiswal reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566, (iv) Jagdish Lal Versus State of Haryana reported in (1997) 6 SCC 538 and (v) State of Uttaranchal Versus Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari reported in (2023) 12 SCC 179, held as under :
"10. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 Page 24 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined i.e., for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the Appellant-State in dealing with their applications, the Respondent-Writ Petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the Respondents- Writ Petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17th March, 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by some of the Respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined to take a decision as to the appointment of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action."
11. Applying the above ratio to the facts of the case, it appears that the appellant-writ petitioner, upon submitting his application in 2010 for reconsideration of the decision dated 27.10.2009, did nothing further to pursue the matter till submitting representation dated 12.02.2017 i.e. for a period of about six years. Therefore, irrespective of the approach of the respondents in not deciding the application, the appellant delayed in approaching this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against the respondent Page 26 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined State Authorities. Therefore, such a prolonged delay, occurred in approaching this Court, would be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the appellant and such a delay would disentitle the appellant to the discretionary relief under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. We are therefore of the opinion that though the appellant may be entitled to the compassionate appointment as the order dated 27.10.2009 is contrary to the Policy as per the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2000, the appellant, having not taken any action for almost six years from 2010 to 2017, would not be entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Page 27 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned decisions.
13. The Hon'ble the Apex Court, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act where no time limit is prescribed, in case of Prabhakar Versus Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another reported in (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 1, has also held that the dispute still existing or live dispute or which has not become a stale claim, depends upon the facts of the case to be considered at the time of granting the relief. In the facts of the case, when the appellant-original petitioner has remained inactive to pursue his remedy, the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of the appellant under Article 226 of Page 28 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/12/2025 undefined the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition on ground of delay and on the ground that the appellant has no vested right to get compassionate appointment.
14. We are therefore, of the opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the Appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) PALAK Page 29 of 29 Uploaded by PALAK BRAHMBHATT(HC01391) on Tue Dec 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Dec 17 20:35:00 IST 2025