Kerala High Court
Sajeev R vs Union Of India on 8 April, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:33512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 34 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2024 IN OA NO.113 OF 2023 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 SAJEEV R., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. RAJAPPAN, PART TIME CASUAL
LABOUR, CENTRAL EXCISE GST BHAVAN, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM
- 682 017, RESIDING AT BABU NIVAS, LFC ROAD, HO 54/3527,
ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020
2 SURESH K.K., AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN, PART TIME CASUAL LABOUR,
CENTRAL EXCISE GST BHAVAN, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM-682 017,
RESIDING AT KOMAROTH (H), UDAYAMPEROOR PO,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682307
3 VILASINI K.P., AGED 57 YEARS
W/O. MADHAVAN K.K., PART TIME CASUAL LABOUR, CENTRAL EXCISE
GST OFFICE, PERUMVABOOR RANGE, ERNAKULAM - 683 542,
RESIDING AT KARIKUDY (H), ALLAPRA PO, PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
4 SHILA M.M., AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL ASSIZ M.I., PART TIME CASUAL LABOUR, CENTRAL
EXCISE GST OFFICE, PERUMVABOOR RANGE, ERNAKULAM - 683 542,
RESIDING AT MURIYANKARA (H), WEST VENGOLA, PO PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
5 SREEKALA P.P., AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. THAMBAN E.N., PART TIME CASUAL LABOUR, CENTRAL EXCISE
GST OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA RANGE, ERNAKULAM - 683 542,
RESIDING AT PULAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY, PO
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686661
6 KRISHNA PRAKASH, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. B. KRISHNAN, PART TIME CASUAL LABOUR, ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AIR CARGO, SHANKUMUGAM, VALLAKADAVU PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008, RESIDING AT PRAKASHAM,
AYANIVILA, MUDHIYAVILA, KATTAKAD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695572
2
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
7 SURESH KUMAR V., AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. VELUPPILLAI, PART TIME CASUAL LABOUR, ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER AIR CUSTOMS, INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024, RESIDING AT SURESH BHAVAN,
KUTHIRAKULAM, KOPPAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695615
8 SARATH KUMAR P.P., AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. NAYADI, PART TIME CASUAL LABOUR, SUPERINTENDENT OF
EXCISE RANGE I, C.R. BUILDING, MANANCHIRAD PO, MANANCHIRA,
KOZHIKODE-673 001, RESIDING AT PULLIKKAL PADAM (H), ARTS
SCIENCE COLLEGE PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673018
9 R. SUGANDHI, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. VISWANATHAN N., PART TIME CASUAL LABOUR, ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, AIR CUSTOMS, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024, RESIDING AT PUTHUVEL PUTHEN
VEEDU, TC 80/2622, MADHAVAPURAM, TITANIUM PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695021
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
THULASI K. RAJ
CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
APARNA NARAYAN MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING,
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSIONS,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
3 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
4 THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
5 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018
6 THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,
I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI C DINESH DSGI IN CHARGE
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
JUDGMENT
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J
The present OP(CAT) is preferred impugning the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.113/2023 dated 24.09.2024,
whereby the following claim of the petitioner/applicant has been rejected
by the Tribunal.
"i) To set aside Annexure A5 and Annexure-A5(h)
Orders as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable;
ii) To declare that the applicants are entitled to get
regularization in service as Part Time Casual Labourers from
their initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits
including arrears of salary, extending the benefit of Annexure
A1 and Annexure A2;
iii) To direct the respondents to extend the benefit of
Annexure A4 to the applicants.
iv) To direct the respondents 1, 5 and 6 to pass
orders regularizing the service of the applicants as Part Time
Casual Labourer from their initial date of appointment with all
consequential benefits including arrears of salary, extending
the benefit of Annexures A1 and Annexure A2;
v) To direct the respondents 1 to 7 and disburse the
arrears of salary to the applicants in the scale of pay in par with
regular Part Time Casual Labourers in the revised rate,
immediately on regularizing the service of the applicants as
sought in prayer no. iv.
vi) To issue such other appropriate orders or
directions that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and
proper in the circumstances of the
case.
vii) To grant the costs of this Original Application."
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
2. The petitioners/applicants, are part time Casual
Labourers, initially engaged during the period from 1995 to 1998. They have
been continuing as Casual Labourers for the past 27 years. The applicants
placed reliance the judgment of the Madras High Court in WP(C)
No.20644/2011, wherein, it was directed to frame a scheme for regularizing
temporary status to the employees in the Central Excise Department, if they
had continuously been in service for a long period. The case of the applicants
was that, they ought to have been regularized with effect from the date of their
first engagement. The petitioners/applicants have also referred a scheme of
1993, even though they were not part time Casual Labourers during the
currency of that scheme and also relied on the scheme framed by the Principal
Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
on the basis of which, services of the Part Time Casual Labourers were
regularized.
3. Even though the petitioners/applicants submitted
representations claiming the aforementioned relief, that was turned down by
the respondents.
4. The petitioners again approached the Tribunal seeking a
declaration that, they are entitled to be regularized in service as Part Time
Casual Labourers from the date of appointment with all consequential
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
benefits, including arrears of salary, extending the benefit of Annexures-A2
and A3.
5. The contention of the petitioners/applicants was that, in
the 1993 Scheme, there was no provision relating to basic educational
qualification of SSLC. It was subsequently added and prescription of such a
qualification was violative of Article 14. The applicants are entitled to get the
benefit of Annexure-A1 in the light of Annexure-A2. The stand taken by the 1 st
respondent in not regularizing the applicants in the post of Part Time Casual
Labourers is contrary to the directions in Annexures-A1 and A2 judgments.
6. The contention of the respondents before the Tribunal
and before us is that, the applicants were engaged in 1997 on Ad-hoc basis. It
is a Part Time job for doing cleaning of office building and premises, toilets,
keeping drinking water in Sections, gardening etc., which are not full time in
nature.
7. The Tribunal, noticing the rival contentions of the parties,
dismissed the claim of the petitioners placing reliance on the decision
reported in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006(4) SCC
1].
8. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
9. Adv.Arun B. Varghese, the Central Government Counsel
submitted that, no interference is warranted in this matter.
10. On the other hand, Adv.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/applicant had been continuing
as Part Time Casual Labourer for a long time and his claim for regularization
was rejected based on the Full Bench decision of the Apex Court in
Umadevi's case (supra).
11. We have heard the rival submissions of the counsel for the
parties and appraised the paper book.
12. The Division Bench of this Court in OP(CAT)
No.174/2023 dated 24.02.2025 considered the same issue elaborately by
placing reliance on the decisions in Jaggo v. Union of India and
Others [2024 SCC Online SC 3826], Shripal and Another v.
Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025 SCC Online SC 221] and
R.Anilkumar v. Union of India [OP(CAT) No.151/2023 dated
12.11.2024]. The relevant paragraphs of Jaggo's case (supra) are
extracted hereunder:
"13. Adv.Kaleeswaram Raj has invited the
attention of this Court to the judgment of the Honourable Apex
Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and Others [2024 SCC
Online SC 3826]. In paragraph 26 of Jaggo's case (supra),
the Apex Court observed as under:
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is
regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or
misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees.
This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and
"irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in
irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned
posts and had served continuously for more than ten years,
should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.
However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted
when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the
claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are
not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.
Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for
temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit
acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate.
This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and
purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have
rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it
is imperative for government departments to lead by example in
providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their
roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only
contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines employee
morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government
institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation,
promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and
fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns
with international standards and sets a positive precedent for
the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country."
14. The learned counsel for the
petitioner/applicant also placed reliance on the decision in
Shripal and Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [2025
SCC Online SC 221].
15. In Shripal's case (supra), the Honourable
Apex Court followed the judgment of Jaggo's case (supra) and
directed the respondents to reinstate the workmen in their
respective posts in Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad who had rendered
prolonged service in that institution. The relevant paragraph of
Shripal's case (supra) is extracted hereunder:
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on
Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees
cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules
providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma
Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and
those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if
they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot
serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for
years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment.
Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement
and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged
asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify
indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices."
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further placed reliance on a Division Bench of this Court in
R.Anilkumar v. Union of India [OP(CAT) No.151/2023
dated 12.11.2024]. In Anil Kumar's case (supra), this
Court took the view that the petitioner who has been working
as Part Time employee for more than 30 years deserves
benevolent consideration. The relevant paragraphs are
extracted hereunder:
"12. The question still to be considered is whether the
petitioner can be denied the right only for the reason that he was
not a candidate sponsored by the employment exchange, although
he fulfills all other eligibility criteria. In Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC
1] the Apex Court evolved a one-time measure of regularisation in
favour of the part-time employees, who completed 10 years service
as on 10.04.2006. A few other conditions including that such
persons should have been serving against sanctioned posts, etc.
were also stipulated. It is a fact that the petitioner has completed
more than 10 years as on 10.04.2006. He, however, might not be
entitled to get the benefit of the directions in Umadevi [(2006) 4
SCC 1] for want of fulfilling a few other conditions. But when
several similarly placed employees were regularised as per
Annexure A23 and the Department decided to absorb the applicants
in O.A.No.519 of 2020, the petitioner's claim on the ground of
principle of parity has a reasonable force. In Arvind Kumar
Srivastava [(2015) 1 SCC 347], the Apex Court held that the
normal rule is that when a particular set of employees had been
given reliefs by the court, other identical persons need to be treated
alike by extending the same benefit.
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and propositions of law,
the claim of petitioner, who has been working as a part time
employee for the last more than 30 years, deserves a benevolent
consideration. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal
vide Exts.P3 and P7 rejecting the claim of the petitioner outright is
liable to be modified. Accordingly, this original petition is disposed
of directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner
for assigning temporary status and regularisation as a
MTS/Havildar benevolently and in the light of the observations we
made hereinbefore. The competent among the respondents is/are
directed to take a decision in that regard within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment."
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, in view of the judgment of Jaggo's case (supra)
and Shripal's case (supra), the case of the petitioner/applicant
requires benevolent consideration. The judgment in
Umadevi's case (supra) ought not have been interpreted to
deny the legitimate claims of the employees who have been
serving for considerable length of time. The dictum laid down
in Umadevi's case (supra) cannot be used as a shield to justify
exploitative engagements persisting for years without the
Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment."
13. In the light of the judgment in the aforesaid
OP(CAT).No.174/2023, we are of the view that the claim of the
petitioners/applicants for regularization deserves benevolent
consideration. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the
respondents shall reconsider the regularization of the
petitioners/applicants, in view of the judgments of Jaggo's case and
Shripal's case referred above. The impugned order of the Central
Administrative Tribunal is, therefore, set aside.
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
OP(CAT) is disposed of with the above direction. The
respondents shall take a decision in this regard within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Sbna/
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 34/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.09.2011 IN
WP(C) NO.20664/2011 PASSED BY THE MADRAS HIGH
COURT ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE TYPED COPY.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.09.2016 IN O.A
NO.180/00896/214 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE TYPED
COPY.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GCCO/II/39/OTH/24/2022-CCAESTT
DATED 30.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL
EXCISE, TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL TO ALL THE CADRE
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES BY THE UNDER SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY
OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 23.08.2021.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT RECEIVED BY THE
1ST APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT DATED 10.11.2022
RECEIVED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT. DATED 10.11.2022
RECEIVED BY THE 3RD APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT. DATED 10.11.2022
RECEIVED BY THE 4TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT. DATED 10.11.2022
RECEIVED BY THE 5TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT. DATED 10.10.2022
RECEIVED BY THE 6TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT. DATED 10.10.2022
RECEIVED BY THE 7TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(g) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT. DATED 10.11.2022
RECEIVED BY THE 8TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A5(h) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
GEXCOM/II/(39)/155/2021-ESTT. DATED 10.10.2022
RECEIVED BY THE 9TH APPLICANT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST
APPLICANT DATED 20.12.2022 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE
TYPED COPY.
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
Annexure A6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND
APPLICANT DATED 30.12.2022 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE
TYPED COPY.
Annexure A6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD
APPLICANT DATED 20.12.2022 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE
TYPED COPY.
Annexure A6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH
APPLICANT DATED 20.12.2022 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE
TYPED COPY.
Annexure A6(d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 5TH
APPLICANT DATED 20.12.2022.
Annexure A6(e) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 6TH
APPLICANT DATED 20.12.2022.
Annexure A6(f) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 7TH
APPLICANT DATED 20.12.2022 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE
TYPED COPY.
Annexure A6(g) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 8TH
APPLICANT DATED 20.12.2022 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE
TYPED COPY.
Annexure A6(h) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 9TH
APPLICANT DATED 20.12.2022.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST
APPLICANT.
Annexure A7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND
APPLICANT.
Annexure A7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD
APPLICANT.
Annexure A7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 4TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure A7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 5TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure A7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 6TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure A7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 7TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure A7(g) TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 8TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure A7(h) TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE 9TH
APPLICANT.
Annexure R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C-18013/25/2009-
AD.IIIB DATED 05.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL
BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT VIDE
NO.GCCO/II/39/OTH/24/2022-CCAESTT DATED JUNE,
2023.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE DATED
20.06.2022 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE TYPED COPY.
OP(CAT) 34/2025
2025:KER:33512
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER OF APPOINTMENT VIDE ORDER
NO.GCCO/II/39/OTH/24/2022-CCAESTT DATED OCTOBER,
2023 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE TYPED COPY.
Annexure R1(B) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C-18013/25/2009-AD.IIIB
DATED 24.02.2021 ALONG WITH APPROXIMATE TYPED
COPY.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
O.A.NO.180/00113/2023 TOGETHER WITH ANNEXURES.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 30.05.2023
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN
O.A.NO.180/00113/2023.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MA FOR DIRECTION FILED BY THE
APPLICANTS IN O.A.NO.180/00113/2023.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 08.05.2023 FILED
ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.09.2024 IN
O.A.NO.180/00113/2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL , ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P(CAT)NO.151/2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED
12.11.2024
