Tripura High Court
Ranjit Debnath & Others vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 24 June, 2024
Page 1 of 14
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.1/2024 in WA No.50 of 2024
WA No.50 of 2024
Ranjit Debnath & others
.........Applicant/Appellant(s);
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
IA No.1/2024 in WA No.51 of 2024
WA No.51 of 2024
Imran Hossain Maishan & others
.........Applicant/Appellant(s);
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
IA No.1/2024 in WA No.52 of 2024
WA No.52 of 2024
Md. Abdul Munim & others
.........Applicant/Appellant(s);
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
.........Respondent(s).
For Applicant/Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate,
Mr. Kawsik Nath, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Deputy SGI,
Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
Order
24/06/2024
IA No.1/2024 in WA No.50 of 2024
IA No.1/2024 in WA No.51 of 2024
IA No.1/2024 in WA No.52 of 2024
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel for the
applicants/appellants, Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy SGI for the
respondent-Union of India and Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, learned junior counsel
to the learned Government Advocate for the respondents-State on the prayer for
condonation of delay of 55 days in preferring the instant memo of appeals. All
these appeals are being taken up together as they arise from the common
impugned judgment dated 19.02.2024 rendered by the learned Writ Court in a
batch of writ petitions whereby the writ petitions were dismissed.
2. On consideration of rival submission of the parties and after going
through the explanations urged in all these three interlocutory applications
seeking condonation of delay, delay is condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the challenge
as well.
2. The writ petitioners/appellants herein in the respective writ
petitions/writ appeals indisputably are appointed at different lengths of time
initially under "Scheme of Financial Assistance for Modernization of Madrasa
Education, 1994" issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development
(Department of Education), Government of India. The scheme was restructured
later under two sub-schemes during the period 2014-15 namely "Scheme for
Providing Quality Education in Madrasa (SPQEM)" and "Infrastructure
Development of Minority Institutions (IDMI)". This modified scheme was
sponsored by the Central Government in the ratio of 90:10 for northeastern
states which includes Tripura. These writ petitioners/appellants herein claim to
have been appointed as per the terms of the scheme through a selection process.
Relevant details of the individual petitioners/appellants herein are indicated in
the body of the writ petition, which are not in dispute by the official
respondents. Some of the writ petitioners approached this Court earlier in
WP(C) No.519/2015 and other analogous writ petitions which were disposed of
by order dated 05.01.2016 [Annexure-5 in WA No.50/2024] directing the
Secretary, School Education Department, Government of Tripura to place the
matter for consideration of the Council of Ministers for appropriate
consideration, if required the Government of India may be roped in, in the
exercise. The operative portion of the order dated 05.01.2016 is extracted
hereunder:
"For that purpose, the state shall reconsider the recommendation made
by the State Level Madrassa Advisory Committee afresh to weigh whether the
petitioners and alike can be regularized or extended with a fair protection of their
services. The secretary to the Government of Tripura in the School Education
Department shall place the matter for consideration of the council of Ministers
for their appropriate consideration, if required the Government of India may be
roped in, in this exercise. The matter shall be placed by the Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, Education Department for consideration of the Council
of Ministers along with a copy of this order within a period of 3(three) months
from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of the judgment to the said
Secretary.
With this observation and direction all these writ petitions are disposed
of.
There shall be no order as to costs."
3. The Council of Ministers however declined the proposal to
regularize the services of the petitioners working as Madrasa Teachers.
However a memorandum was issued on 07.10.2016 by the Directorate of
Elementary Education (Madrasa Education Cell) for revision of monthly salary
of SPQEM teachers at par with the salary of the State Government teachers
with effect from 01.10.2016 in pursuance of the decision of the Council of
Ministers dated 27.09.2016 with prior concurrence of the Finance Department.
A memorandum dated 13.10.2017 was issued which made allocation of fund of
Rs.1,48,19,180/- for payment of enhanced salaries to the Graduate Teachers,
Graduate (B.Ed) and Post Graduate Teachers working under centrally
sponsored scheme i.e. SPQEM at par with the teachers working under the
Government of Tripura after excluding the salary provided by the Government
of India per month to the PGTs and GTs/GTs (B.Ed) for the period of October,
2017 to November, 2017 during the year 2017-18. However, this memorandum
was cancelled by memorandum dated 26.10.2017 issued by the Education
(School-Elementary) Department (Madrasa Education Cell) and instead,
reallocation of fund not exceeding Rs.1,00,08,350/- was accorded during 2017-
18 for payment of two months enhanced salaries to teachers of SPQEM,
Madrasa for the period October, 2017 to November, 2017 as per break-up
contained in the enclosed Annexure-A. This memorandum was issued in
exercise of the power delegated vide Government of Tripura, Finance
Department Memo dated 09.12.2011.
4. The State Government in its Counter Affidavit has defended this
decision to reduce the allocation on the ground that the enhanced allocation
made vide memorandum dated 07.10.2016 [Annexure-7] was made due to
clerical error by including increment and dearness allowance thereunto.
Thereafter, the writ petitioners are being paid the enhanced monthly salary as
per SPQEM. It is pertinent to point out here that earlier the State Level
Madrassa Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 31.12.2009 had taken
certain decisions which include a resolution for regularization of 127 number of
existing Modernized Madrassa Teachers at para 8 of Minutes of the Meeting.
This recommendation was not acted upon by the Council of Ministers. The
learned Writ Court in the first round of litigation had also taken note of the
recommendation while issuing directions upon the department to place the
matter for consideration of the Council of Ministers for appropriate
consideration and also to involve Government of India, if required. Evidently,
the Council of Ministers did not agree to the proposal for regularization of these
Madrasa teachers which has led to the second round of litigation [WP(C)
No.898/2022]. The writ petitioners, on this occasion, have made two-fold
prayer - (i) For regularization of their services in the post of Madrassa Teachers
(General/Science/Arabic) under the SPQEM centrally sponsored scheme; (ii)
For direction upon the respondents to pay monthly salary at par with their
equivalent in the State Government with effect from 01.01.2017 with arrears.
The learned Writ Court, upon consideration of the materials on record placed by
the rival parties which include the stand of the State Government and the
Central Government, has negated the prayer of the petitioners inter alia in the
following manner:
"10. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and have perused the scheme as well as other documents
annexed to the writ petition and the counter affidavits.
11. On perusal of the scheme, I find that the scheme is purely voluntary to be
fully funded by the Central Government. The scheme is basically formulated to
develop the educationally backward minorities pursuing their education in
traditional institutions like Madrasas and Maktabs with the inclusion of subjects
like Science, Mathematics, Social studies etc. in their curriculum. Clause 3(I) of
the Scheme clearly speaks of financial assistance where 100% grants to be
provided by the Central Government to ensure the appointment of qualified
teachers in Science, Mathematics, Social studies and languages engaged in such
traditional/voluntary organizations/Government aided institutions for
modernization of Madrasa Education.
12. Further, under Clause 3 of the Scheme, 1994 it is clearly stated that "In
the present scheme, it is proposed to give 100% Central Assistance for salary in
addition to other items of the scheme, in order to encourage the voluntary
organizations to modernize their curriculum." Clause 5 of the Scheme, 1994
prescribes Eligibility Conditions, which is as under:
"5. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS:
1. Voluntary organizations/societies/trusts which are registered under central
or state Govt. Acts or Wakf Boards shall be eligible to apply for assistance under the
scheme.
2. Only those voluntary agencies which have been in existence for three years
would be considered for assistance under this scheme.
3. Such voluntary organizations should:
- have a proper constitution of Articles of Association;
- have a properly constituted managing body with its power and duties
clearly defined in the constitution;
- be in a position to secure the involvement, on voluntary basis, of
knowledgeable persons for furtherance of their programmes;
- not be run for the profit of any individual or a body of individuals;
- not discriminate against any person or group of persons on the ground of
language or sex, etc.
- not function for the furtherance of the interests of any political party;
- not in any manner incite communal disharmony."
Again, Clause 6 of the Scheme, 1994 prescribes the implementation and
monitoring, which is as under:
"6. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING:
The scheme will be implemented by the State Governments as a Central
Scheme under which 100% financial assistance will be provided to state
Governments for implementation of this scheme. All requests for financial assistance
shall, as a rule, be entertained by the State Governments on the prescribed
application forms. These will be considered on merits by the State level grant-in-aid
committees.
Monitoring report regarding the number of Madrasas receiving assistance,
total number of beneficiary students and the amount received and utilized by the
madrasas, shall be furnished to the Department of Education, Govt. of India on
annual basis. The performance of the scheme may be reviewed after completion of
three years of its operation.
Organisations requesting for financial assistance will apply on the
prescribed APPLICATION FORM.(ANNEXURE-I).
- The application will be addressed to the Education Secretary in the State/UT, who
will be the Chairperson of Grant-in-Aid committee in the State/UT.
- Education Secretary can also nominate any officer to act as Chairperson in his place
if he/she so desires.
Other members of the committee will include:
- One representative from the Department of Education, Government of India.
- One/two representatives from Madrasa Education Management/Board.
- One eminent educationist.
- TA/DA to attend these meetings will be borne by the concerned
Deptt./Institutions/Organisations nominating their representative to attend the Grant-
in-Aid Committee meetings.
The grant will be admissible to only those organizations/institutions who
will submit the updated statement of accounts for all the grant-in-aids received by
them from central/State governments for the preceding one year duly certified.
The accounts/records of activities of the organization shall be available on
demand for inspection to Central/State Government."
13. I have perused the Scheme, 1994, which has enough relevance to resolve
the disputes raised in this writ petition.
14. It is stated in the writ petition that the said Scheme, 1994 had been
restructured during the period 2014-15 which covers two special sub-schemes
namely, "Scheme for Providing Quality Education in Madrasa(SPQEM)" and
"Infrastructure Development of Minority Institutions(IDMI)". It is further stated
that Scheme for Education of Madrasas and Minorities(for short, SPEMM)
comprising of SPQEM and IDMI will be a Centrally Sponsored scheme, rather
than be continued as 100% grant scheme and the funding pattern under
SPEMM(comprising of SPQEM and IDMI) would be similar to other centrally
sponsored schemes i.e., 90:10 for NE States, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &
Kashmir and Uttarakhand. So, under the revised scheme the funding pattern has
been re-determined as 90:10.
15. Next, on plain reading of the offer of appointments issued in favour of
the petitioners it transpires that the petitioners were offered a purely temporary
post of General Teacher under the Centrally sponsored Plan Scheme, namely,
"Scheme for Providing Quality Education in Madrasa"(SPQEM) implemented by
the Education(School) Deptt., Tripura on fixed honorarium basis Rs.6,000/-
(Rupees Six thousand) only per month as per schematic pattern of SPQEM
Scheme. The terms and conditions of appointment are as under:
"i) The appointment is purely on temporary basis and till continuation of this scheme
by the Government of India.
ii) Rates of monthly honorarium may be changed as per norms of Government of
India.
iii) The appointed teacher shall have to undergo short course training as and when
organized by the Director of School Education.
iv) Taking of an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution of India in the prescribed
form.
v) Their fixed honorarium shall be drawn by the Office of the concerned Inspector of
Schools from their respective date of joining."
16. It is pertinent to mention herein that the restructured scheme further
provides funding pattern where it is stipulated that Rs.6,000/- per month for
Graduate Teacher and up to Rs.12,000/- per month for Graduate with B.Ed./Post
Graduate/Post Graduate with B.Ed. would be made for maximum of 3(three)
teachers per Madrasa and up to Rs.5,00,000/- per year per Madrasa Board.
17. In the light of the aforesaid facts narrated here-in-above, I am of the firm
opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to get their services regularized under
the State respondents. It is revealed that the Scheme is made for developing the
standard of education in the traditional institutions like Madrasas and Maktabs by
way of introducing Science, Mathematics, Social studies, etc.
The funding pattern is 90:10 ratio, i.e. to fulfill the object of the Scheme,
90% of the total expenditure would be borne by the Central Government and
10% by State Government. Hence, the State Government has minimum liability
to allocate fund for the teachers appointed under the said Scheme, 1994 read with
the restructured schemes.
The Central Government has not created any sanctioned post against
which such teachers can be permanently appointed or absorbed. In the
appointment letter, it is clearly written that the appointment is purely on
temporary basis and till continuation of the Scheme, 1994 formulated by the
Government of India.
From the Memorandum of offer of appointment as extracted in the
preceding paragraph[para 15], it is evident that rates of monthly honorarium also
to be fixed by the Government of India and it may be changed as per norms of
the Government of India.
18. That apart, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary and discretionary
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the State to
regularize or permanently absorb an employee in absence of any sanctioned
vacant posts considering the financial involvement necessary for creation of such
posts. This Court has no expertise to evaluate the economic scenario of the State.
The financial position is to be considered by the State Government itself and in
this respect, the Court should not step into the shoes of the Government. The
Court also has no power to unilaterally direct the Government to pay the
minimum pay of the basic pay to the teachers appointed under the State
Government since the nature of appointment vis-à-vis the status and position of
the petitioners cannot in any way be treated as equal to that of the teachers
appointed under the State Government.
19. Furthermore, it is settled proposition of law that claim of regularization
cannot be made as a matter of right. The equality clause contained in Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India should be scrupulously followed and the
Court should not issue a direction for regularization of services of an employee
which would be violative of the Constitutional Scheme(Daya Lal(supra)). It is
also settled that the salary pattern in respect of an employee shall be governed by
the terms mentioned in the appointment letter. The concerned employee has
preferred to join the service knowingfully well that on being appointed, he would
be paid the salary which is mentioned in the terms of offer of appointment itself.
In the case of Daya Lal(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that
the right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract
or under a statute. In the instant case, undisputedly the petitioners are paid the
salary which is mentioned in their terms of appointment vis-à-vis the Schemes.
20. That keeping in mind, the submission of learned senior counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to equal pay for equal work, according
to me, the petitioners cannot be treated at par the regular teachers appointed
under the State Government. Here, without amplifying the matter, it is clear that
the status and position of the petitioners is clearly distinguishable as they were
not appointed against any regular sanctioned posts alike the teachers appointed
under the State Government in accordance with a specified Recruitment Rule
framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India; in contra-distinction the
appointments of the petitioners directly and manifestly emanated from a Scheme
formulated by the Central Government in a particular situation to achieve a
different object, that is, to standardize education in Madrasas, and similar other
organizations working in this field as stated in the preceding paragraphs.
21. The above dissimilarities disentitle the petitioners to be treated at par the
teachers appointed under the State Government. The service conditions of the
petitioners are exclusively governed by the provisions envisaged in the said
Scheme vis-à-vis the memorandum of appointment encapsulating the terms and
conditions mentioned therein.
22. For the reasons stated and discussed here-in-above, I do not find any
merit in the present writ petitions and accordingly, the above bunch of writ
petitions stands dismissed."
Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners have approached this Court in
these appeals.
5. The sheet anchor of the argument on behalf of the appellants
advanced by learned senior counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman assisted by learned
counsel Mr. Kawsik Nath is that by the very nature of their engagement, the
petitioners/appellants herein are performing a permanent job though it is being
extended from time to time as a centrally sponsored scheme initially with
funding of hundred percent and later modified in the ratio of 90:10. The original
scheme of 1994 mandated that the salary for teachers appointed under this
scheme will be the same as given to similar teachers appointed by the respective
State Governments. It is also the case of the petitioners that they have been
appointed through a regular selection process but till date they have not been
regularized in service; nor are being treated at par with the similar teachers
appointed by the respective State Governments in terms of salary and other
service benefits after 2017. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners/appellants
herein has drawn the attention of this Court to a recent decision dated
30.01.2024 rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Ors. v.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5153-5154 of 2024
(arising out of SLP (C) Nos.22241-42 of 2016). It is submitted that the Apex
Court has, in the said decision after taking note of the initial appointment of the
appellants on temporary basis under a scheme based engagement which
continued over a length of time, held that failure to recognize the substantive
nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees
runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind
employment Regulations. The Apex Court took into consideration the fact that
these appellants were also granted promotion by a regularly constituted
Departmental Promotion Committee and had been in continuous service for
over a quarter of a century. Accordingly, the submissions on behalf of the
appellants were accepted by issuing a direction upon the respondent-Railways
to complete the process of regularization within a stipulated period. Relying
upon this decision, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that even
in cases of engagement under temporary scheme which has continued for a
length of time as is the case of the present appellants, the claim for
regularization cannot be negated on the ground that their initial engagement was
on temporary basis under a centrally sponsored scheme. They are performing a
perennial nature of job and as such, they are entitled to regularization.
6. Both the Central Government and the State Government have
countered the submission of the petitioners/appellants herein through Counter
Affidavits filed before the learned Writ Court which are annexed to the instant
memo of appeals as well. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Deputy SGI has drawn
the attention of this Court to the Schedule annexed to the scheme under which
funds are to be allocated to the State Government for bearing the burden of
salary of the Madrasa teachers like the petitioners. It is submitted that para 8 of
the scheme clearly indicates that the appointments are on contract basis and the
scheme does not provide for a cadre of regular appointment. These are purely
on short term basis. There is no provision of regular teachers in the scheme. It is
further submitted that the centrally sponsored scheme provides for assistance to
State Governments on differential funding basis across India. The funding to
the northeastern states is in the ratio of 90:10. The appellants are seeking
regularization under the State Government. The original scheme and the
modified scheme SPQEM are planned expenditure which do not contemplate
creation of regular posts under the establishment, the expenses of which can be
borne by the Central Government like that of a regularly appointed employee. It
is also submitted that the appointments being of purely temporary nature, can
last only till the continuation of the scheme by the Government of India as is
also indicated in the terms and conditions of the appointment to the individual
appellants.
7. On the part of the State Government Mrs. Riya Chakraborty,
learned junior counsel to Government Advocate, has reiterated the averments
made in the Counter Affidavit. It is submitted that the Council of Ministers did
not accept the proposal for regularization of services of the appellants in its
meeting held on 28.06.2016. The request made to the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of India on 04.03.2016 for regularization of these Madrasa
teachers was not responded to. It is their case that the State Government is only
required to bear 10% of the financial burden for payment of honorarium to
these Madrasa teachers under the centrally sponsored scheme. The respondents-
State however does not dispute that the appellants have been appointed after
due advertisement. But it is stated that their engagement are on temporary basis
which shall last only till the continuation of the scheme. The rates of monthly
honorarium may be changed as per norms of Government of India. Since the
engagement is on temporary basis under a centrally sponsored scheme, the State
Government is not in a position to regularize the services of these appellants.
8. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the
parties at sufficient length and taken note of the relevant materials placed on
record. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Ors. (supra) cited on behalf of
the appellants.
The engagement of these appellants indisputably is under a
centrally sponsored scheme initially with 100% assistance under the original
scheme of 1994 and later on modified in the year 2014-15 in the ratio of 90:10
for the northeastern states including Tripura. Though the petitioners/appellants
herein have been appointed after a selection exercise under an advertisement
under the CSS, but their terms and conditions of appointment stipulate that it is
purely on temporary basis and till continuation of the scheme by the
Government of India. Government of India bears 90% of the fund whereas the
State Government bears only 10%. The scheme is accepted on voluntary basis
by the State Government. Burden of bearing the entire expenses of a regular
employee thus cannot be placed upon the State Government when the scheme is
of the Central Government and the share of the State is only 10%. It is also not
in dispute that neither the Central Government has asked nor the State
Government has created any sanctioned post for permanent appointment or
absorption of teachers like the appellants engaged in Madrasa. On a pointed
query put to the learned senior counsel for the appellants as to whether similarly
situated teachers are working on permanent establishment under the Madrasa
performing the same nature of duties and discharging the similar nature of
responsibilities, learned senior counsel for the appellants have not been able to
point out such an instance. On the other hand, the averments made at para 38 of
WP(C) No.898/2022 (against the judgment of which WA No.50/2024 was
preferred) does refer to representation of the petitioners raising various
demands including salary like other teachers working under the State
Government and for regularization of their services. Thus, the contention of the
petitioners that they have been performing similar nature of duties like other
teachers permanently engaged in Madrasa to substantiate the claim of
regularization is not acceptable. The learned Writ Court appears to have taken
due note of all the relevant pleadings and documents including the terms and
conditions of the centrally sponsored scheme and the terms of the appointment
of these teachers in Madrasa and rightly come to a conclusion that they are not
entitled for regularization or for being permanently absorbed in the government
services. The relevant findings of the learned Writ Court have been extracted
hereinabove as well. Provision for salary at par with the State Government
teachers appears to have been taken by the State Government as per
memorandum dated 07.10.2016. The allocation of fund for that purpose through
memorandum dated 13.10.2017 was cancelled as due to inadvertence, the
computation of the amount was made including increment and dearness
allowance which are not admissible to the present Madrasa teachers at par with
the State Government teachers. In any case, the State Government is under an
obligation to provide for 10% of the burden of salary to be paid to these
teachers as the scheme is a centrally sponsored scheme. The respondents-State
in its Counter Affidavit has also taken the plea of fund constraints to provide
salary on continuous basis at par with the State Government teachers. The
learned Writ Court has also duly taken note of this position at para 18 of the
impugned judgment and rightly observed that it cannot direct the government to
pay the minimum pay or the basic pay to the teachers appointed under the State
Government since the nature of appointment vis-à-vis the status and position of
the appellants cannot in any way be treated as equal to that of the teachers
appointed under the State Government. Though the appointments have been
made on temporary basis by the State Government, but the scheme is a centrally
sponsored scheme. As such, the State Government cannot be compelled to
make payment of salary if it faces financial constraints. However, the request of
the petitioner to accord salary equivalent to teachers in the State Government
depending upon the financial position of the State Government is always left
open for the State respondents to take into account for giving similar benefits to
the present appellants. The observations made hereinabove does not amount to
foreclosing that option for the State Government forever if the finances permit.
9. In the light of the discussion made hereinabove, we are also of the
considered view that the appellants do not have a right to be regularized under
the centrally sponsored scheme by the State Government. In the case of Vinod
Kumar and Ors. (supra) which has been relied upon on behalf of the appellants,
it can be seen that the engagement of those appellants, was under a scheme on
temporary basis under the Railways, though not in the nature of a centrally
sponsored scheme like the present one where the Central Government has borne
90% of the fund and the State Government has to bear 10% of the expenses.
Moreover, in the case of Vinod Kumar & Others, those appellants continued
under the engagement of the Railways for over a quarter of a century and got
promotions through a regularly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee
and were performing substantive nature of their duties which aligned with
regular employees. In the case of the present appellants, there is no such
permanent cadre of teachers in the Madrasa performing substantive nature of
duties on regular basis for the appellants to claim themselves at par. In such
circumstances, the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Vinod
Kumar and Ors. would not come to the aid of the present appellants. As such,
we do not find any substance in these appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
MUNNA SAHA SAHA
Date: 2024.07.06 19:44:11
+05'30'
Pijush/
