Malabika Dhar vs The Sate Of Assam And 3 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4165 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/21

GAHC010100072021




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/3481/2021

         MALABIKA DHAR
         W/O SANJIB KUMAR DEB, R/O HOUSE NO. 62, WEST NARSHING ROAD,
         AMBIKAPATTY, SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM 788004



         VERSUS

         THE SATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL REMEMBRANCER AND SECY. TO THE
         GOVT. OF ASSAM, JUDICIAL DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006

         2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM 781001

         3:PRESIDING OFFICER

          INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
          SILCHAR
          CACHAR
          ASSAM.

         4:THE PRINCIPAL SECY.

          GOVT. OF ASSAM
          DEPTT. OF FINANCE
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI
          ASSAM 78100
                                                                         Page No.# 2/21




                                  BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
                                  ORDER

           For the Petitioner:         Mr. K. Sarma,              Advocate


           For the Respondents:        Mr. H.K. Das,                   SC, GHC,
                                           Mr. B. Gogoi       ,        SC, Finance


                   Date of Hearing     :        23.05.2023

                   Date of Judgment    :         09.10.2023



                           Judgment and Order (CAV)

Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.

K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, for the respondents no.1

to 3 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the

respondent no.4.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus from

this Court directing the respondent authorities to take necessary steps enabling

the petitioner to draw pay scale of the Record Keeper as per the action plan

prepared by the Government of Assam on the basis of the recommendation of

the Shetty Commission. The petitioner was appointed as Record Keeper in the

establishment of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in the year Page No.# 3/21

1982. She joined the said Department on 19.07.1981 and she has been working

there till her retirement in the year 2022. At the time of her appointment the

Industrial Tribunals were under the Department of Labour and Employment of

Government of Assam. Subsequently, in the year 2010 all the Tribunals including

the Labour Courts were brought under the control of the Gauhati High Court

and the Judicial Department of Government of Assam. The petitioner was

appointed as a Record Keeper vide the appointment order dated 17.07.1982 in

the scale of pay of Rs.200-4-224-6-300/- per month plus other allowances as

admissible under the Rules. She joined the service on 19.07.1982 and was still

in service at the time of filing the present writ petition. Subsequently, she,

however, superannuated in the year 2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that

as per the Shetty Commission recommendations, Revision of Pay (RoP) that

ought to have been made in respect of the petitioner was not done. According

to the petitioner, as per the Shetty Commission's recommendation, pay scale of

Record Keeper at scale of Rs.3850-7350 is equivalent to Supervisory Assistant/

UD Assistant/Judicial Peshkar/ Nazir/Stenographer Grade-III and they are the

common category posts as reflected in the action plan. The said action plan was

prepared by the Government of Assam in terms of the direction of the Apex

Court passed on 07.10.2009 in WP(C) No.1022/1989 - All India Judges

Association and Others vs. Union of India & Other. The directions issued by the Page No.# 4/21

Apex Court were required to be complied with for which purpose the

Government of Assam had prepared the action plan. The petitioner was a

Record Keeper since her appointment but she had been drawing the pay scale

of a Record Arranger which is 2650-5200/- instead of allowing her to draw the

pay scale of a Record Keeper which is 3850-7350/- with effect from 01.04.2003

as per the Shetty Commission recommendation. The petitioner made several

requests to all the competent authorities, however, her plea was not considered.

Referring to a communication dated 11.11.2010, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that by the said communication the Hon'ble Gauhati High

Court had communicated to all the District and Sessions judges, the Principal

Judges, Family Courts, the Presiding Officers, the Special Judge, CBI Court, the

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guwahati/Dibrugarh, the Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati/Dibrugarh/Silchar, The Judge, Designated Court,

Assam, Guwahati and the Chief Judicial Magistrate of all the Districts, the draft

action plan submitted by the Government of Assam for furnishing the financial

implications/ involvement towards implementation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India's directions passed in WP(C) No.1022/1989 on 07.10.2009 relating to

the revision of pay scales, etc of the Subordinate Court Staff. Learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that as per the said action plan there are a few

"common category posts." Under the said common category posts at serial no. 5 Page No.# 5/21

Record Keeper is shown in the pay scale of 3850-7350/- whereas at serial no.

11 Record Arranger has been shown in the pay scale of 2650-5200/-.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was

appointed as a Record Keeper under the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar and

therefore, her revision of pay ought to have been made in the pay scale

available to Record Keeper which is 3850-7350/-. It is submitted that however,

she had all along being given the pay scale of Record Arranger which is 2650-

5200/- and the benefits as recommended by the Shetty Commission ought to

have been given to her in the appropriate pay scale of Record Arranger which is

3850-7350/-. It is further submitted that by the communication dated

18.12.2010, the Judicial Department, Government of Assam informed the

Accountant General (A& E) Assam Maidamgaon, Beltola regarding the

implementation of the recommendation of the Shetty Commission in respect of

the staff of subordinate Courts with effect from 01.04.2003. It was informed

that as per the Shetty Commission, one increment has been granted at the

existing pay scale to the each of the holders of the category of posts mentioned

therein. The category of posts included Stenographer Grade-I, Supervisory

Assistant, UD Assistant, Judicial Peshkar, Record Keeper, Nazir, Stenographer

Grade-III, LD Assistant, Civil Copyist/Typist Copyist, Crl. Copyist/ Police Diary

Copyist/ Follo Copyist, Record Arranger.

Page No.# 6/21

4. It is further submitted that initially when the post was created, it was the

post of Record Arranger. Subsequently, when all the Tribunals and subordinate

Courts came under the administration of Gauhati High Court, the post of Record

Keeper and that of Record Arranger carrying similar duties under similar

establishment could not have been given two different pay scales. It is

submitted that as the nature of duties and responsibilities of both the posts of

Record Keeper and Record Arranger are same, the pay scale should also be

equal. Consequently, the benefit of ROP has not been conferred on the

petitioner in the appropriate pay scale which is the pay scale of Record Keeper.

The petitioner preferred the representation before the Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal, Silchar as well as before the Registrar General, Guwahati

High Court. By a communication dated 06.09.2017 issued by the Registrar

(Judicial), Gauhati High Court to the L.R. & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam,

Judicial Department, Government of Assam, it was mentioned in the ROP Rules

2010, the pay scale for the post of Record Keeper of Industrial Tribunal is shown

as 5200-20200/- in the Grade pay of 1900/- in pay band 2, which corresponds

to the pre revised scale of 2650-52000, which is the scale for the post of Record

Arranger. However, in the earlier letter of the Judicial Department dated

03.10.2012 (available at Pg.-44 of the paper book), which was issued regarding

the sanction for creation of posts, the record keeper is shown as equivalent to Page No.# 7/21

the post of UDA. Accordingly, it was requested that appropriate steps in regard

to the pay scale of Record Keeper in the Industrial Tribunal, Silchar be taken.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation preferred

by the petitioner did not invoke any response to the grievances raised by the

petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be given the benefits

of ROP in the pay scale of Record Keeper and not in the pay scale of Record

Arranger. That apart, as reflected from the letter of the Registry of the Gauhati

High Court, the post of Record Keeper is shown to be equivalent to the post of

UDA. Under such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

appropriate direction be granted to the respondent authorities to grant the

available benefits under the ROP Rules to the petitioner in the appropriate scale

of pay. In support of his contention the petitioner has relied upon the judgment

passed by the Apex Court on 07.10.2009 in I.A.No.71A, 135-136, 137-138 & 142

in WP(C) No. 1022/1989, wherein following directions were passed:

"......

i) The high Courts, on judicial/administrative side, will ensure implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission within a reasonable period of one year. The High Court shall permit writ petitions or applications that may be filed by the individual or staff association representing the various members of the staff.

ii) The High Courts shall also see that the recommendations are implemented w.e.f.

Page No.# 8/21

01.04.2003.

iii) There shall be benefit of one advance increment on the existing pay-scale instead of initial pay-scale. In many of ht estates, the same benefit has not been given to the members of the staff, the High Court should also see that these recommendations are implemented.

iv) In some of the states based on various other pay commissions Reports, benefits had been given to the members of the staff, these benefits, if any, given shall be in addition to the recommendations given by the Shetty Commission. In any case, if the members of the staff association/subordinate staff getting higher benefits under any of the recommendations of the pay commission/Government orders, they shall be permitted to avail those benefits."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the Notification No. JDJ.

147/2012/17 dated 30.07.2012 whereby the Governor of Assam recommended

the financial benefits in the pre-revised pay structure which shall be given effect

in the pre-revised pay scale of pay from 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2005. This

Notification was issued by the State in pursuance to the order dated 07.10.2009

passed in W.P.(C) No. 1022/1989 by the Apex Court. Under the said Notification,

it was stated that this benefit shall be equally applicable to the staffs of

corresponding grade and status working in various Courts like MACT/Family

Court/ Industrial Tribunals/ Labour Court/ Courts of Special Judge, CBI/ Special

Judge, Assam, Judge Designated Court etc which falls within the sweep of the

term "Sub-ordinate Judiciary". It is submitted that the said Notification further Page No.# 9/21

provides that if any of the employees of Sub-ordinate Courts are drawing under

ROP 2010 or any other existing Government order, higher pay benefits once

prescribed in the said Notification then they will continue to draw such higher

pay benefits. It is further provided that in case of any confusion or difficulty that

may arise in implementation of the said Notification, clarification may be

obtained from the Judicial Department, Government of Assam.

7. As the petitioner's claims have not been redressed, the present writ petition

has been filed with the following prayers:

"a. Issue a Writ or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to take necessary steps enabling the petitioner to draw Pay Scale of Record Keeper as per the Action Plan prepared by the Government of Assam on the basis of recommendations of Shetty Commission.

b. Pass any other or further order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

8. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 contested the case by filing their counter

affidavits. The respondent nos. 2 & 3 disputed the contentions raised by the

petitioner.

9. Mr. H.K Das, learned Standing Counsel GHC submits that the contentions of

the petitioner are on wrong understanding of the provision of law as well as of Page No.# 10/21

the applicability of the Revision of Pay Rules. It is submitted that the pay scale

for Record Arranger which is payable to the petitioner has since been revised

and whatever benefits accrue to the petitioner in terms of the Revision of Pay

has already been granted. It is submitted that the post of Record Keeper

created in the establishment of the Industrial Tribunal is different from the post

of Record Keeper available under the establishment of District and Sessions

Judge. The post of Record Keeper was created in the establishment of the

Industrial Tribunal vide notification dated 27.01.1981. It is submitted that

although the post was created as a Record Keeper in the Industrial Tribunal but

the pay scale granted was equivalent to that of a Record Arranger under the

District and Sessions Judge establishment. As such, it has to be accepted that

the post of Record Keeper in the Labour and Industrial Tribunal is equivalent to

the post of Record Arranger and not to the post of Record Keeper under the

District and Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3

submits that the question of whether the post of Record Keeper in the Industrial

Tribunal and the Record Arranger in the District and Sessions Judge

establishment is equivalent or not, has to be decided by the competent

authority. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner that the benefits which

accrue to the petitioner under the ROP Rules, in so far as, the post of Record

Keeper in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, is required to be Page No.# 11/21

conferred to the petitioner as a Record Keeper in the Labour and Industrial

Tribunal cannot be accepted. Such submission is opposed to the proposition of

parity of pay as well as to the Principle of titrant of pay scales. Merely because

the names of the posts are identical that by itself will not confer any right on the

petitioner to claim for equal pay without there being any decision by the

competent authority thereon. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3

submits that the benefits which had accrued to the petitioner under the ROP as

per Shetty Commission recommendation have already been released in the

appropriate scale of pay which is available to the petitioner. In support of his

contention, learned Standing Counsel GHC for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has

relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department also disputes the

contention raised by the petitioner. He also submits that the post of the

petitioner as a Record Keeper in the establishment of Labour and Industrial

Tribunal is not equivalent to the post of Record Keeper in the establishment of

District and Sessions Judge and as such her contention that the petitioner is not

entitled to the benefit of the ROP as she had been denied the scale of pay

equivalent to that of Record Keeper in the District and Sessions Judge

establishment cannot be accepted. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled Page No.# 12/21

to the Shetty Commission benefits as per the existing scale of pay and as such,

the increment available to the petitioner in her scale of pay has already been

paid. The learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department submits that the

petitioner at this stage cannot raise a plea of parity in employment, merely

because, of the nomenclature of the posts are similar. In this context, learned

Standing Counsel for the Finance Department refers to and relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court rendered in SC Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand

reported in 2007 (8) SCC 279.

11. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard and pleadings on

record have been carefully perused. Judgments cited at the Bar have been

carefully noted.

12. The short question which has arisen in this proceeding is whether the

benefits available to the petitioner under the Shetty Commission

recommendations read with the direction of the Apex Court rendered in WP(C)

No.1022/1989 on 07.10.2009 have been denied to the petitioner. The case

projected by the petitioner is that in the action plan prepared by the

Government of Assam and which was widely circulated amongst all heads of Page No.# 13/21

establishment under the Judicial Department including Presiding Officer of

Industrial and Labour Tribunal, refers to some common category posts are

shown. Under the said common category posts at serial no. 5 Record Keeper is

shown in the pay scale of 3850-7350/- whereas at serial no. 11 Record Arranger

has been shown in the pay scale of 2650-5200/-. That apart, it is projected by

the petitioner that in the communication dated 06.09.2017 issued by the

Registry of this Court whereby the Judicial Department was requested to take

appropriate steps in respect of showing the post of Record Keeper to be

equivalent to the Upper Division Assistant and thereby, the learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the Registry of the High Court has already accepted

the claim of the petitioner that the post of Record Keeper under the Industrial

Tribunal is equivalent to the post of UDA in the District Judge establishment and

which would consequently mean that the pay scale available to the post of

Record Keeper under the Industrial Tribunal is equivalent to pay scale given to

the post of UDA under the District Judge establishment which is 3850-7350/-.

Under such circumstances, it is contended that the benefits should accrue to the

petitioner under the Revision of Pay Scales (ROP) Rules as per the Shetty

Commission report and the same ought to have been conferred in the pay scale

of 3850-7350/- instead of the present pay scale which is given to the post of

Record Keeper under the Industrial Tribunal and which pay scale is equivalent to Page No.# 14/21

the post of Record Arranger in the District and Sessions Judge establishment.

The petitioner is aggrieved that notwithstanding the recommendation made

under the ROP and the acceptance of the Shetty Commission Report, the

benefit accrued to the petitioner under the ROP Rules have not been conferred

as the Fitment in the revised pay-scale has not been properly worked out in

order to confer the benefit due to the petitioner.

13. Before considering the issues raised in the writ petition, it is necessary

to examine the law expounded by the Apex Court as have been relied upon by

the counsels at the bar. In S.C. Chandra (Supra), the Apex Court was released

of DA with arrears along with interest in respect of the petitioners who are

Teachers and Non-Teaching staff of a School run by the Hindustan Copper

Limited (HCL). The Teachers and the Non-Teaching staff of the School claimed

themselves to be employees of the HCL and a further direction was sought for

to the HCL not to close the School and the State Government be directed to

take over the affairs of the School in question. Before the High Court, the writ

petition as well as the appeal was dismissed as the High Court came to the

conclusion that the School concerned was not the dominant object of HCL and

therefore there was no relationship of employer and the employees between the

management of the HCL and the Teachers and other staff of the School.

Page No.# 15/21

Therefore, no direction was given and the writ petition was dismissed. The

question which arose before the Apex Court is whether a writ of mandamus as

prayed for could be issued to the HCL. One of the issues raised before the Apex

Court was since the petitioners claimed that they were employees under the

Hindustan Copper Limited, they are entitled to the pay and wages and other

financial benefits as being paid to other similarly situated employees of HCL.

The Apex Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner. It was held that

the principle of equal pay for equal work must satisfy the test that the

incumbents are performing equal and identical work as discharged by

employees against whom the equal pay is claimed. The persons who claimed

the parity should satisfy the Court that the conditions are identical and equal.

14. In State of Haryana Vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors , reported in (2006) 9 SCC

321, the Apex Court was examining the claim of "equal pay for equal work", it

was held that normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work is required to

raise a dispute in this regard. It was held that in any event, the party who

claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove

that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court,

the court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof.

If the High Court is, on basis of materials placed before it, is convinced that Page No.# 16/21

there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled,

it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective

writ petition. In each such case the court must satisfy itself that the burden of

proving that the work and conditions are equal is discharged by the aggrieved

employee.

15. In Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. Vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya ,

reported in (2011) 11 SCC 122, the Apex Court was yet again examining the

claims of parity of pay. The Apex Court held that parity of pay can be claimed by

invoking the provisions of Article 14 arid 39(d) of the Constitution of India by

establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality

of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional

need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The

functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and

substantially different. Granting of parity in pay scales depends upon the

comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity

must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between

the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating

the affidavits filed by the parties. In other words, the equality clause can be

invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale Page No.# 17/21

identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and

parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. The Apex Court

held that that it is not always impermissible to provide two different pay scales

in the same cadre on the basis of selection of merit with due regard to

experience and seniority. Non-uniformity would not in all events violate Article

14. The Apex Court held that the Expert Committee has to decide such issues,

as the fixation of pay scales, etc. which falls within the exclusive domain of the

executive. So long as the value judgment of those who are responsible for

administration are found to be bona fide, reasonable, and on intelligible criteria

which has a reasonable nexus with the object of differentiation, such

differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is not prohibited in law to

have two grades of posts in the same cadre. Thus, the nomenclature of a post

may not be the sole determinative factor of deciding the parity of pay. The

courts in exercise of their limited power of judicial review can only examine

whether the decision of the State authorities is rational and just and not

prejudicial to a particular set of employees. The court has to keep in mind that a

mere difference in service conditions does not amount to discrimination. Unless

there is complete and wholesome identity between the two posts they should

not be treated as equivalent and the court should avoid applying the principle of

equal pay for equal work.

Page No.# 18/21

16. Upon due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels

for the parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that mere

similarity in the nomenclature of the post does not ipso facto entitle the

employee to claim for parity of pay scale. For a pay scale to be equivalent there

must be a proper evaluation of the nature of work, responsibility, etc by the

competent authority which in the facts of the case has not been shown to have

been undertaken by the competent authority. There are instances where even

where the nature and responsibility of 2 (two) posts are similar, even then, the

parity in pay scale cannot be a granted as a matter of right unless the

competent authority takes a decision in that regard.

17. The writ petitioner nowhere brings into comparison the nature of duties

of a Record Keeper in the Industrial Tribunal and the duties of the Record

Keeper in the establishment District and Sessions Judge. The person claiming

parity must plead all necessary facts and support the claim of the parity of the

posts. Such facts are not found to be pleaded in the present proceedings. The

respondents have maintained that the similar nomenclatures of the posts are

not sufficient to claim parity of pay scale and give the benefit to the petitioner.

Page No.# 19/21

18. On the other hand, it is seen that by communication dated 06.09.2017., the

Registry of this Court intimated the Judicial Department, Government of Assam

to apprise the Registry as to the claims made by the writ petitioner in respect of

the grant of benefits under the ROP 2010. However, in reply to the said

communication, the Judicial Department merely intimated the Registry of this

Court that petitioner would be payable her claims in the slab that she is entitled

to. No definitive reply was issued by the Judicial Department as to which scale

of pay would be applicable in respect of the petitioner. Because of the lack of

clarity from the concerned Department including the Judicial Department, the

claim of the petitioner appears to have not been resolved. However, in the

affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the Judicial Department, there is a

categorical averment that the petitioner is not entitled to the claims raised in the

present writ petition. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the benefits due to

the petitioner have already been made available to her in her appropriate scale

of pay. This averment in the affidavit, however, does not explain the manner in

which the claims of the petitioner have been addressed and conclusion arrived

at that the petitioner has not entitled to the claims made.

19. After every Revision of Pay (RoP), the benefits accrued to the employees will

have to be decided in terms of the Fitment scales which is an exercise required

to be undertaken by the competent authority to work out the benefits allowable Page No.# 20/21

or accrued to the various employees in the appropriate payscales. The

averments made in the affidavit of the Judicial Department does not reflect

whether this exercise was undertaken. To decide upon such claims raised by

the petitioner in the present proceedings, a detailed exercise is required to be

undertaken by the competent authority to ascertain if the claims made by the

petitioner that the benefits which had accrued to her under the RoP have not

yet been conferred in the appropriate scale of pay.

20. Under such circumstances, although this Court does not find any ground to

grant the prayer made by the petitioner in the present petition. However, in

view of the pertinent question which is raised regarding the parity of pay scales

in respect of 2 (two) posts having similar nomenclature under the 2 (two)

different establishments both under the department of Law and Justice as well

as the Administrative control of the High Court, the relief claimed by the

petitioner required to be moulded and this Court therefore directs the

respondents to adjudicate upon the representations preferred by the petitioner

in respect of the claim of parity of pay scale and thereby pass a speaking order

upon giving the opportunities to the petitioner. The respondent Judicial

Department will therefore consider the claims raised by the writ petitioner and

thereupon pass appropriate orders referring to the various provisions of the RoP

as well as taking into consideration the notification dated 30.07.2012 issued by Page No.# 21/21

the Government of Assam and pass a speaking order. While disposing of the

application, the competent authority will clearly indicate the scale of pay in

which such benefits were conferred. If upon evaluation of the entire matter, the

competent authorities are of the view that the pay scale in the post of Record

Keeper in the Labour and Industrial Tribunal and in the establishment of District

and Sessions Judge are to be treated as one and the same, then appropriate

orders to that effect should be passed. If such an order is passed then the claim

made by the petitioner is required to be entertained and all benefits that accrue

to the petitioner should also be granted to her in terms of the Revision of Pay

Scale with effect from 01.04.2003. The exercise as directed above should be

conducted as expeditiously as possible but within the outer limit of 90 (ninety)

days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

21. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No order as to

cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant