[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
A.Ahammed vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:10254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41334 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 A.AHAMMED
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KAREEM RAWTHAR,
JESEENA MANZIL,
ERUMAKUZHY, NOORANAD P.O.
ALAPUZHA DIST, PIN - 690504
2 N.K.CHANDRANPILLA
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAPILLAI THAMARASSERIL,
ADOOR P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691523
3 T.U.VARGHESE,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.ULAHANNAN, THEVARADIYIL,
KANJIRATHUMOODU PATHUPALLY P.O,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686011
4 V.V.SIVARAMAN
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.V.R.VELAYUDHAN, VATTOLIPARAMABIL,
MUPPALIYAM P.O., (VIA) CHENGALOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680812
5 P.E.MATHEW
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O MATHEW, PAZHAVARIKKAL THEKKETHIL,
KALLOOPARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689583
6 K.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR
AGED 74 YEARS
2026:KER:10254
WP(C) No.41334 of 2024
2
S/O.KUNJIKRISHNA PILLAI, BHIMEA, DHONI P.O.,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678009
7 K.THANKAPPAN NAIR
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O.NANU PILLAI, CHANGHAYIL VEEDU,
PAITTAMKUNNU,
DHONI P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678009
8 C.J.JOHN
AGED 78 YEARS
S/O. JOHN, CHETTAYIL VEEDU, KALTHOTTY P.O.
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685507
9 SIMON ABRAHAM
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.ABRAHAM, ONNUKALLIL VEEDU, THEKKUMKAL P.O.,
KOTTATHUR, AYROOR, PATHANAMTHITTTA, PIN -
689614
10 K.SREEKUMARAN NAIR,
AGED 77 YEARS
VPS, VATTAVILA, THIRUMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695006
11 R.STEPHEN
AGED 72 YEARS
VIJAYARAGHAVAPURAM P.O., SASTHAMKUNNU,
CHALAKUDY (VIA) THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680722
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SMT.P.R.REENA
SRI.RENJITH THAMBAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2026:KER:10254
WP(C) No.41334 of 2024
3
2 SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURE (AHF) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
4 KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PATTOM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695004
BY ADV
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SRI.PREMCHAND R NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.11.2025, THE COURT ON 06.02.2026
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:10254
WP(C) No.41334 of 2024
4
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2026
The petitioners, who are retired employees of the
Kerala Livestock Development Board Limited, have filed this
writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P12 and to direct the 1 st
respondent to implement Ext.P8 Cabinet decision on
acceptance of Employees Provident Fund Employers
contribution with interest from the petitioners and grant
pension to the petitioners restoring Ext.P2 within such time as
may be fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioners state that they are retired
employees of the Kerala Livestock Development Board.
They were engaged from the year 1971-1972. There were
32 employees engaged, 16 of them expired. From 1997, the
petitioners have been trying to get pensionary benefits.
2026:KER:10254
3. The Cabinet of the Government of Kerala
has taken a decision on 23.07.2014 to give pension to the
petitioners on the petitioners depositing the Employees'
Provident Fund contribution to the Government.
4. The petitioners were engaged as
Inseminators on contract basis under the Indo Swiss Project
(ISP) under the Animal Husbandry Department. They were
engaged from the year 1971-1972 onwards. The Indo Swiss
Project merged with the Kerala Livestock Development and
Milk Marketing Board, which was reconstituted as the Kerala
Livestock Development Board Limited later.
5. Some of the employees approached this
Court seeking regularisation of their services. Pursuant to
the judgment of this Court, Ext.P1 order was issued on
13.06.1997 regularising the services of the 24 contract /
provisional employees.
2026:KER:10254
6. Though the employees were regularised,
their contract period from 1971 to 02.04.1978 in the erstwhile
Indo Swiss Project and Kerala Livestock Development was
stated only as 'pay contract'. The Kerala Livestock
Development Board made a proposal to the Government to
regularise the services of the employees from the date of
initial appointment.
7. Government, as per Ext.P2 order dated
30.01.2001, regularised the services of the employee, who
worked in ISP as Inseminators on contract basis, from the
respective date of their initial appointment. However, in
Ext.P2, it was stated that pension and Gratuity will be paid to
the employees as if for Government employees and in case
of retired personnel also the same benefit will be extended
subject to the condition that the employees will refund the
employer's contribution to the Employees' Provident Fund.
2026:KER:10254
8. The petitioners state that Ext.P2
Government Order was not implemented. Hence, certain
employees filed OP No.6885/2003 before this Court seeking
to direct the respondents to implement Ext.P2 and disburse
pension and other retirement benefits. OP No.6885/2003
was disposed of by this Court directing the Government to
take a decision.
9. The Government, thereafter issued G.O.(Rt)
No.1356/2007/AD dated 24.07.2007 taking a stand that
pension cannot be sanctioned to the retired employees like
the petitioners for the reason that EPF has not agreed to
refund the employers contribution which was one of the
conditions in Ext.P2 order.
10. The petitioners challenged G.O.(Rt)
No.1356/2007/AD dated 24.07.2007 filing W.P.(C)
No.31569/2009. In the meanwhile, the Government withdrew
Ext.P2 order dated 30.01.2001 by issuing Ext.P4 order dated
2026:KER:10254
07.08.2008. Ext.P2 order was withdrawn for the reason that
the employer's share of contribution to the Employees'
Provident Fund was not refunded to the Government.
11. Ext.P4 order dated 07.08.2008 was
challenged in W.P.(C) No.31569/2009. A learned Single
Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition as per Ext.P5
judgment, quashed G.O.(Rt) dated 07.08.2008 and directed
implementation of Ext.P2 order.
12. The petitioners state that against Ext.P5
judgment, the State of Kerala filed W.A. No.418/2015. A
Division Bench of this Court passed Ext.P6 judgment
directing the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation to
remit the employer's contribution with reference to the
petitioners to the 2nd respondent within a period of one month.
It was also directed that on receipt of the said amount, the
Government / Kerala Livestock Development Board shall
make pension contribution for the respective period and
2026:KER:10254
pension shall be paid accordingly. In Ext.P6, the Division
Bench made it clear that if the contribution is not remitted by
the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within one
month, Ext.P4 order will revive. Though Ext.P6 judgment
was challenged, the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
13. The petitioners state that in Ext.P2
Government Order, three conditions were stipulated for grant
of pension to the petitioners. One of the conditions was that
the employees will refund the employer's contribution to the
EPF. The petitioners were under the bona fide impression
that the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation will refund
the employer's share. They did not do so. The Kerala
Livestock Development Board made Ext.P7 request to the
Government on 15.12.2011 seeking to grant monthly pension
to the petitioners and the retired employees as stipulated in
Ext.P2.
2026:KER:10254
14. The petitioners further state that the Council
of Ministers, Government of Kerala, as per Ext.P8 decision
dated 23.07.2014 decided to restore the pension to the
petitioners on condition that the employer's contribution will
be refunded.
15. The petitioners thereupon submitted a
representation to the authorities to take a favourable decision
in the matter. The Kerala Livestock Development Board also
had made a recommendation in this regard to the
Government as per Ext.P11 letter dated 17.02.2021. The 2 nd
respondent has also informed the Government that the
employees' contribution paid to the Employees' Provident
Fund Organisation can be refunded by the employees to the
Government or the Board. The 2nd respondent requested the
Government to take a decision to grant pension to the
petitioners restoring Ext.P2 order.
2026:KER:10254
16. However, the Government, as per Ext.P12
letter dated 06.05.2021, informed that the offer of the
petitioners to refund the employees contribution made to the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation with interest to the
petitioners' personal accounts and for restoration of Ext.P2
order, cannot be considered.
17. The petitioners challenged Ext.P12 order
filing W.P.(C) No.8576/2022. The writ petition was disposed
of as per Ext.P13 judgment dated 05.07.2022. By Ext.P13
judgment, this Court set aside the letter dated 06.05.2021
issued by the 1st respondent. This Court directed the
petitioners to submit a representation to the 1 st respondent
and the 1st respondent was directed to consider the same
appropriately. The petitioners thereupon submitted Ext.P14
petition.
18. To the surprise and predicament of the
petitioners, the said representation was also rejected as per
2026:KER:10254
Ext.P15 communication dated 14.08.2024 stating that since
the EPF authorities have informed that employer's
contribution cannot be refunded, the request of the petitioners
cannot be considered.
19. Government Pleader entered appearance
and resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the 3 rd respondent,
it submitted that no employer's contribution of EPF in respect
of the petitioners had been received by the Board from the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation within the period
specified in the judgment. The 4 th respondent informed the
Government that they were not in a position to remit the
employer's share of EPF contribution. Accordingly, in the
absence of refund of employer contribution in respect of the
petitioners by the EPF authorities, the benefit granted under
the Government Order stood withdrawn.
20. The 3rd respondent further submitted that the
petitioners had submitted requests to implement Ext.P8 and
2026:KER:10254
had expressed willingness to refund the employer's
contribution with interest. The request is without merit. The
scheme of refund envisaged under G.O.(Ms.) No.25/2001/AD
contemplated refund of the employer's contribution from the
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and not by way of
voluntary repayment from the employees. The employer's
contribution under the EPF Act is a statutory payment to the
credit to the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and
cannot be refunded directly by the employees to the
Government. Therefore, the willingness expressed by the
petitioners is irrelevant.
21. The 3rd respondent emphatically denied the
statement of the petitioners that Ext.P8 Cabinet decision
binds the 1st respondent to accept refund of EPF contribution
from the petitioners. The 3rd respondent stated that the
Cabinet decision has not been acted upon through a formal
Government Order. Therefore, the Cabinet decision will not
2026:KER:10254
confer any enforceable right on the petitioners. The
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation had consistently
refused to refund the employer's share. Ext.P15 is a
reasoned order, contended the Government Pleader. The
grievance of the petitioners was duly examined. All relevant
documents and earlier judgments were considered. The
challenge against Ext.P15 is therefore unsustainable and the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed, urged the Government
Pleader.
22. Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for
the petitioners submitted that by Ext.P8, the Cabinet of the
State Government had taken a decision to restore the
pensionary benefits to the petitioners on condition that the
employer's contribution will be refunded. Ext.P8 Cabinet
decision has been practically overruled by a Joint Secretary
as per Ext.P15 order dated 14.08.2024. The decision of the
Council of Ministers, even though it has not resulted in a
2026:KER:10254
formal executive order, cannot be ignored or overruled by any
officer.
23. The Senior Counsel relying on the Rules of
Business of the Government of Kerala stated that subject to
the orders of the Chief Minister under Rule 14, all cases
referred to in the Second Schedule shall be brought before
the Council of Ministers in accordance with the provisions of
the Rules contained in Part II. As per Rule 14, all cases
referred to in the Second Schedule shall be submitted to the
Chief Minister after consideration by the Minister-in-Charge
with a view to obtain his orders for circulation of the case or
for bringing it for consideration at a meeting of the Council.
24. The Senior Counsel submitted that
proposals which affect the finances of the State which have
not obtained the consent of the Finance Minister and
proposals involving any important change of policy or practice
are to be brought before the Council as such proposals are
2026:KER:10254
included in the Second Schedule to the Rules.
25. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in Bal Kalyani and others v. State of
Maharastra and others [1993 KHC 1414], the Senior
counsel urged that it is not a mere procedural rule that had
been overlooked inadvertently. It is a breach of a
fundamental obligation on the part of the functionaries of the
State. If Ext.P8 is not given effect to, it would amount to
rendering a Government resolution lifeless.
26. Relying on the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in Chandrapur District Central Co-operative
Bank Limited v. State of Maharashtra [2023 KHC Online
5010] , the Senior Counsel pointed out that even the
intervention of the Chief Minister is not authorised under the
Business Rules. Once the Council of Ministers take a
decision, the same has to be given effect to.
2026:KER:10254
27. Government Pleader relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of
Punjab and another [AIR 1963 SC 395] and contended that
the business of the State is a complicated one and has
necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large
number of officials and authorities. Action must be taken by
the authority concerned in the name of the Governor. It is not
a formality. Unless the decision taken in the Cabinet is
communicated for implementation in the form of a
Government Order, it cannot be implemented.
28. Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P8
is only a noting of a proceeding. Such proceedings
summarising the Cabinet decision with several conditions, will
not create any vested right on any party. A right vests only
when the decision is culminated in an executive order.
29. Government Pleader further submitted that
the matter was considered by a Division Bench of this Court
2026:KER:10254
and the Division Bench of this Court has delivered Ext.P6
judgment. One of the condition for grant of relief in Ext.P6
was that respondents 3 and 4 shall remit the employer's
contribution with reference to the petitioners to the Board
within a period of one month. The said condition was not
satisfied. Therefore, the judgment has worked out. The issue
has become final and conclusive. The petitioner cannot
aspire to reopen the matter subsequently. The writ petition is
without any merit and it is only to be dismissed.
30. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader
representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
31. The petitioners are employees retired from
the service of Kerala Livestock Development Board Limited.
Initially, they were engaged on contract basis under Indo
Swiss Project (ISP). The ISP later merged with Kerala
2026:KER:10254
Livestock Development and Milk Marketing Board. The said
Board was reconstituted as the Kerala Livestock
Development Board Limited. The service of the petitioners
was regularised with effect from 03.04.1978. The contract
period from 1971 to 02.04.1978 was treated as "Pay
Contract".
32. At the request of the Managing Director of
the Board, the Government regularised the service of the
petitioners with effect from respective dates of their initial
appointment, as per Ext.P2. However, Ext.P2 stated that
Pension and Gratuity will be paid to the employees of the
Board as if they are Government employees. But, in the case
of retired employees, the benefit will be extended on
condition that the employees will refund the employer's
contribution to the Employees Provident Fund. The said
decision was not implemented.
2026:KER:10254
33. In OP No.6885/2003, this Court directed the
Government to take a decision in the matter. The
Government took a stand that pension cannot be sanctioned
to the retired employees like the petitioners, since the
Employees' Provident Fund Board has not agreed to refund
the employees' contribution which was one of the conditions
in Ext.P2 Government Order. The Government withdrew
Ext.P2 order dated 30.01.2001 by issuing Ext.P4 order dated
07.08.2008.
34. The issue came up for consideration before
a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.418/2015. The
Division Bench of this Court considered the case of the
petitioners exhaustively. The Division Bench, in Ext.P6
judgment, found that the Government had undertaken to pay
government pension only on certain conditions, which
admittedly had not been complied with even today. The
Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal with the following
2026:KER:10254
directions:
"i) That respondents 3 and 4 shall remit employer's
contribution with reference to the petitioners to the
Board within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii) On receipt of the said amount,
Government/Board shall make pension contribution
for the respective period of service and the pension
shall be paid accordingly.
iii) Ext.P15 shall be kept in abeyance until the
aforesaid period of one month and if the
contribution is not remitted by the EPF Organisation
as stated above, Ext.P15 order shall apply and the
petitioners shall be entitled only for the benefit
mentioned in Ext.P15."
Though the said Ext.P6 judgment was challenged in SLP
No.15230/2017, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP.
35. The Employees' Provident Fund
Organisation did not refund the employees' share. The
Board, however, again requested the Government to grant
monthly pension to the petitioners as stipulated in Ext.P2.
The petitioners would submit that the Council of Ministers, as
per Ext.P8 decision dated 23.07.2014, has decided to restore
2026:KER:10254
the pension to the petitioners on condition that the employer's
contribution will be refunded.
36. The Government, however, issued Ext.P12
letter dated 06.05.2021 informing that the offer of the
petitioners to refund the employee contribution with interest
for restoration of Ext.P2 order cannot be accepted. The Joint
Secretary, Department of Finance also informed the
1st petitioner that since the EPFO has refused to refund the
contribution, pension cannot be granted to the petitioners.
Exts.P12 and P15 orders are under challenge.
37. The petitioners' claim for pension is based
on Ext.P2 Government Order dated 30.01.2001. The issue
was considered by a Division Bench of this Court which
delivered Ext.P6 judgment. In Ext.P6 judgment, the Division
Bench found that the Government had undertaken to pay
government pension only on certain conditions, which
admittedly had not been complied with even today. The
2026:KER:10254
Division Bench hence found that the direction given by the
learned Single Judge for payment of government pension to
the petitioners is unsustainable.
38. Nevertheless, the Division Bench directed
respondents 3 and 4 therein to remit employer's contribution
with reference to the petitioners to the Board within a period
of one month and on receipt of the said amount,
Government / Board shall make pension contribution and
pension shall be paid accordingly. The Division Bench
directed to keep in abeyance Ext.P15 for a period of one
month. However, the Division Bench further directed that if
the contribution is not remitted by the EPFO as directed
above, Ext.P15 order shall apply and the petitioners shall be
entitled only for the benefit mentioned in Ext.P15. The EPFO
did not remit the employer's contribution within one month.
Therefore, in view of Ext.P6 judgment of the Division Bench
in W.A.No.418/2015, the issue involved is concluded and the
2026:KER:10254
petitioners are not entitled to government pension.
39. The petitioners would further urge that by
Ext.P8, a cabinet meeting of the Government of Kerala on
23.07.2014 had decided to restore the pension to the
petitioners on condition that the employer's contribution will
be refunded. However, later, by Ext.P12 letter, the
Government has taken a stand that the offer of the petitioners
to refund the employee contribution made to the EPFO
cannot be considered.
40. The argument of the petitioners is that
Ext.P8 decision of the Council of Ministers cannot be
reversed by Ext.P12 communication issued on behalf of the
Secretary to the Government. The petitioners will rely on the
Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala to urge the
point. This raises the question of implementation of Ext.P8
decision of the Council of Ministers.
2026:KER:10254
41. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bachhittar
Singh v. State of Punjab and another [AIR 1963 SC 395]
has held that the business of State is a complicated one and
has necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a
large number of officials and authorities. The constitution
therefore requires and so did the rules of business that the
action must be taken by the authority concerned in the name
of Rajapramukh. It is not till this formality is observed that the
action can be regarded as that of the State. The Minister is
no more than an advisor and that the Head of the State,
Governor, is to act with the aid and advice of his Council of
Ministers. Therefore, until such advice is accepted by the
Governor, whatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers
say in regard to a particular matter does not become the
action of the State until the advice of the Council of the
Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head
of the State. In this case, Ext.P8 decision of the Council of
2026:KER:10254
the Ministers has not come out as an executive order under
Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
42. The claim of the petitioners for payment of
pension based on Ext.P2 Government Order is concluded by
Ext.P6 Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.
No.418/2015. Since the condition of remitting employer's
contribution as directed by the Division Bench is not satisfied,
the petitioners cannot rely on Ext.P2 any more. As Ext.P8
decision of the Council of Ministers has not resulted in an
executive order, the petitioners cannot make any claim based
on Ext.P8 either.
Hence, the writ petition fails and it is
dismissed.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk/SR/aks
2026:KER:10254
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 41334 OF 2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO (MS) 178/97/AD
DATED 13.06.1997
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER
GO(MS).NO.25/2001/AD DATED 30.01.2001
DATED 30.01.2001
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.07.2007 OF THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2008
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
07.11.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO. 23638 OF
2009 AND WP(C).NO.31569/2009
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.04.2016
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUESTED DATED
15.12.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE CABINET DECISION DATED
23.07.2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT
PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY
ON 07.08.2015
Exhibit P9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT
PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY
19.11.2015
Exhibit P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.07.2021
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 17.02.2021
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06.05.2021
ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C).8576/2022 DATED 05.07.2022
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
2026:KER:10254
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
HON'BLE MINSTER, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
DEPARTMENT DATED 26.05.2023
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
14.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE JOINT
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit R3(a) True copy of letter no. KR/KC/WA No.
418 and 478/2025/Legal Cell/2016 dated
07-07-2016
Exhibit R3(b) True copy of GO(Rt) No.150/2023/AHD
dated 17-04-2023
