Maria Margaret Valarmathi.S v. The Commissioner Of Rural Development And Panchayat Raj
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7293, 7296 & 7767 and 7303, 7304, 7768 & 8161 and 7305, 7306 & 7766 and 7307, 7308, 7771 & S.Maria Margaret Valarmathi ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9547/2021 T.Sasikumar ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9551/2021 M.Highcourt Raja ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9552/2021 B.Siddarthan ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9554/2021 vs.
The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
The District Collector, O/o. the Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
... Respondents 1 and 2 in all the W.Ps.
R.Alamelu ... 3rd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.9547/2021 M.Ibrahim Sulthan ... 3rd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.9551/2021 K.Dhanalakshmi ... 3rd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.9552/2021 S.Suresh ... 3rd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.9554/2021 Prayer in W.P.(MD)Nos.9547 and 9551 of 2021:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned reversion order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/15022/2019-2, dated 19.05.2021 and the consequential promotion order of the third respondent, issued by the second respondent, in his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/5157/2020-3, dated 19.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.9552 of 2021:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned 1/11
reversion order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/5157/2020-2, dated 19.05.2021 and the consequential promotion order of the third respondent, issued by the second respondent, in his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/5157/2020-3, dated 19.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.9554 of 2021:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned reversion order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/5157/2020-2, dated 19.05.2021 and the consequential promotion order of the third respondent, issued by the second respondent, in his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/15022/2019-3, dated 19.05.2021 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner in all the W.Ps.
: Mr.Ajmalkhan Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 and R2 in all the W.Ps.
: Mr.Veera.Kathiravan Senior Standing Counsel Assisted by Mr.P.Subbaraj Government Advocate For R3 in W.P.(MD) Nos.9551 & 9554/2021 : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan COMMON ORDER The issues involved in these writ petitions are one and the same and therefore, the same are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by this common order.
2.According to the petitioners, initially, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9547 of 2021 - S.Maria Margaret Valarmathi was appointed as Typist on 31.01.1997 at District Panchayat Office, Thoothukudi; the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9551 of 2021 - T.Sasikumar was appointed as Junior Assistant on 27.10.1997 at Panchayat Union Office, Vilathikulam, Thoothukudi District; the petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.9552 of 2021 - M.Highcourt Raja was appointed as Steno Typist on 26.08.1994 at Development Section, Rural Development Department, Thoothukudi District; and the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9554 of 2021 - B.Siddarthan was appointed as Steno Typist on 26.08.1994 at District Rural Development Agency, Thoothukudi. Thereafter, they were promoted as Assistant on 12.04.2000, 25.06.2001, 31.03.2006 and 24.12.2007 respectively. Subsequently, they were promoted as Deputy Block Development Officer on 30.06.2010, 13.09.2010, 28.09.2012 and 28.09.2012 respectively. The next promotional post is Block 2/11
Development Officer. The feeder category for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer is Deputy Block Development Officer. While so, the second respondent published Panel for Block Development Officer for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, by his proceedings, dated 11.11.2019 and 26.06.2020, respectively. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9547 and 9551 of 2021 were in Serial Nos.1 and 61 in the Panel for the year 2019-2020, dated 11.11.2019 and the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9552 and 9554 of 2021 were in Serial Nos.1 and 2 in the Panel for the year 2020-2021, dated 26.06.2020, respectively.
3.The petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9547 and 9551 of 2021 were promoted as Block Development Officer temporarily, by the second respondent, vide his proceedings in e.f.vz;.t1/15022/2019, dated 30.11.2019 and their services were regularized by the second respondent, vide his proceedings in e.f.vz;.t1/4411/2020. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9552 and 9554 of 2021 were promoted as Block Development Officer temporarily, by the second respondent, vide his proceedings in e.f.vz;.t1/5157/2020, dated 26.06.2020. While so, the second respondent, vide his impugned proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/15022/2019-2, dated 19.05.2021, reverted the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9547 and 9551 of 2021 as Deputy Block Development Officer and vide his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/5157/2020-2, dated 19.05.2021 reverted the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.
9552 and 9554 of 2021 as Deputy Block Development Officer and also vide his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/5157/2020-3, dated 19.05.2021, promoted the third respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.9547, 9551 and 9552 of 2021 as Block Development Officer and vide his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/15022/2019-3, dated 19.05.2021, promoted the third respondent in W.P.(MD)No.9554 of 2021 as Block Development Officer in the place of the petitioners. The petitioners have come out with the present writ petitions challenging the aforesaid orders. 4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that without notice to the petitioners, the second respondent revised the original Panel for the year 2019-2020, dated 11.11.2019 and the Panel for the year 2020-2021, dated 26.06.
2020 and reverted the petitioners as Deputy Block Development Officer and given promotion to the third respondent in all the writ petitions as Block Development Officer behind the back of the petitioners. The third respondent in all the writ petitions are seniors to the petitioners. At the time of crucial date and preparation of Panel, their names were not considered and deferred due to pendency of charge memo, which was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules [hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''] alleging that they have participated in the indefinite strike organized by the Joint Action Council of Teachers' Organizations-Government Employees Organization [JACTOGEO]. Therefore, promotion was given to the petitioners, as their names stand in Serial Nos.
2019-2020 and 2020-2021, respectively. In view of the said promotion, the petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9547 and 9551 of 2021 are working as Block Development Officer from 30.11.2019 onwards and the same was also regularized by the second respondent, vide his proceedings dated 25.02.2020. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9552 and 9554 of 2021 are working as Block Development Officer from 05.08.2020 onwards. While so, all of a sudden, the second respondent without following the principles of natural justice, passed the impugned order, reverting the petitioners to the post of Deputy Block Development Officer.
5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the right of promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The said right cannot be taken away arbitrarily without following due process of law. Once the promotional order was issued and the petitioners joined in the promotional post, they cannot be reverted without giving any opportunity of being heard. The second respondent without any jurisdiction, passed the impugned reversion order. The second respondent on 19.05.
2021 revised the original Panel for the year 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 and reverted the petitioners as Deputy Block Development Officer from the post of Block Development Officer and given promotion to the third respondent in all the writ petitions as Block Development Officer on the very same date behind the back of the petitioners without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. Without cancelling the promotion order by giving opportunity to the petitioners, the present impugned reversion order passed by the second respondent, is without jurisdiction. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to Sections 7, 47 and 52 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
The learned Senior Counsel further contended that after exoneration of charges, the third respondents can be considered for promotion only in the next Panel year. Even though the promotions of the petitioners are termed as temporarily, in fact, the petitioners' promotions were regular promotions and prayed for allowing the Writ Petitions. 6.The respondents 1 and 2 and the third respondent in W.P.(MD) Nos.9551 and 9554 of 2021 filed separate counter affidavits along with vacate stay petitions.
7.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.9551 and 9554 of 2021 separately contended that the petitioners were temporarily promoted as Block Development Officer and in the order, it has been specifically mentioned that the said promotion do not confer any right on the petitioners and at any time, they will be reverted without notice and without assigning any reason. The third respondent in all the writ petitions are seniors to the petitioners. In the Panel for the year 2019-2020 and 4/11
2020-2021, the third respondent in all the writ petitions were shown above the petitioners. Due to pendency of charges under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, for participation in the strike, promotion of the third respondent in all the writ petitions and 10 others were deferred in the Block Development Officer Panel for the year 20192020 and 2020-2021. As no charges were pending, the petitioners in the writ petitions were promoted temporarily as Block Development Officer from the Panel. The second respondent - District Collector, by separate proceedings dated 23.10.2020, after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and explanation, exonerated the third respondent in all the writ petitions from the charges. Thereafter, the third respondent in all the writ petitions gave representation on 24.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 19.11.2020 and 17.11.
2020 respectively, to the second respondent to include their names above the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9547 of 2021, viz., S.Maria Margaret Valarmathi. Subsequently, the Government, vide G.O.(Ms)No.9, Personnel Administrative and Reforms Department, dated 02.02.2021, dropped the charges against the Government employees and the teachers, who participated in the strike from 22.01.2019 to 30.01.2019. The petitioners jointly made a representation on 03.05.2021 to the second respondent, requesting him to include the names of eligible persons, who had participated in the strike, in the Panel for the year 2021-2022, fixing the cut-off date as 01.03.2021 and give promotion to them in the future vacancies.
8.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.9551 and 9554 of 2021 further submitted that as per Schedule - XI, Part - A - II (1) and (19) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, once the charges are dropped or on exoneration of charges, the employees are entitled to promotion with retrospective effect and the appointing authority shall pass orders regarding promotion of employees, against whom charges were framed, if they are exonerated or acquitted of the charges, within 15 days from the date of issue of final orders in the departmental disciplinary case or criminal case.
The estimate vacancies for the post of Block Development Officer for the year 2019-2020 was '7' and for the year 2020-2021 was '14', but actually, only 2 vacancies arose in the said years. The third respondent in all the writ petitions are seniors to the petitioners and they were promoted in the Panel for the year 2019-2020 and 20202021. The petitioners were reverted as Deputy Block Development Officer due to want of vacancies.
9.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.9551 and 9554 of 2021 submitted that the writ petitions are filed only on the ground that no notice was given to the petitioners before reverting them to the post of Block Development Officer. On the other hand, the petitioners gave a 5/11
representation, dated 03.05.2021, to the second respondent, requesting him to include the names of eligible persons, who had participated in the strike, in the Panel for the year 2021-2022, fixing the cut-off date as 01.03.2021 and give promotion to them in the future vacancies. The said representation was considered and the petitioners' request was rejected by the second respondent, vide separate proceedings dated 19.05.2021. The second respondent has given valid reason for rejecting the representation of the petitioners. In the promotion proceedings itself, the second respondent has mentioned that the promotion is purely temporary in nature and the promotees cannot claim any right and they would be reverted at any time as and when necessity arises.
The temporary promotion will not confer any right and that may be revoked at any time without any notice. Section 47(3) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, makes it clear that a person, who is temporarily promoted, be replaced when eligible persons entitled to be promoted. They further contended that as per Schedule - XI Part - A - II (1) and (19) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the third respondents are entitled to promotion retrospectively and as per Section 52 of the said Act, a promoted person shall be reverted to lower post when there is no vacancy and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
10.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in W.P.(MD)Nos.9551 and 9554 of 2021 and perused the materials available on record.
11.From the materials available on record, it is seen that, (i) initially, the petitioners were appointed as Typist, Junior Assistant and Steno-Typist and Steno-Typist respectively, and the third respondent in all the writ petitions were appointed as Junior Assistants on various dates. The petitioners are juniors to the third respondent.
(ii) Subsequently, all of them were promoted as Assistant and Deputy Block Development Officer.
(iii) In the promotional post also, the petitioners are juniors to the third respondent. In the Panel for the year 2018-2019, 20192020, the third respondent in all the writ petitions were above the petitioners.
(iv) The promotion of the third respondent in all the writ petitions were deferred in view of pendency of charges issued under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, for having participated in the strike called by JACTO-GEO. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Block Development Officer in the vacancy arose in the years 20192020 and 2020-2021. (v) After considering the enquiry report and explanation of the third respondent in all the writ petitions, the second respondent 6/11
exonerated them from the charges.
(vi) Thereafter, the third respondent in all the writ petitions gave representation on 24.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 19.11.2020 and 17.11.2020 respectively, to the second respondent to include their names above the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9547 of 2021, viz., S.Maria Margaret Valarmathi.
(vii) Subsequently, the Government, vide G.O.(Ms)No.9, Personnel Administrative and Reforms Department, dated 02.02.2021, dropped the charges against the Government employees and the teachers, who participated in the strike from 22.01.2019 to 30.01.2019.
(viii) Thereafter, the petitioners jointly made a representation on 03.05.2021 to the second respondent, requesting him to include the names of eligible persons, who had participated in the strike, in the Panel for the year 2021-2022, fixing the cutoff date as 01.03.2021 and give promotion to them in the future vacancies. The petitioners in their affidavit did not mention the said request made by them.
(ix) The second respondent considered the request made by the petitioners and rejected the same, vide proceedings dated 19.05.2021, by referring to Schedule - XI, Part - A - II (1) and
(19) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016. For better appreciation, the said Schedule is extracted hereunder:- ''SCHEDULE-XI [See section 7 (1)] PART-A II. Consideration of members for inclusion in the approved lists:-
(1) In case where enquiry (except Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings enquiry) including preliminary or detailed enquiry by the appropriate Investigating Authority is pending against a member of service and no specific charges have been framed, promotion or appointment of such member of service shall be considered on the basis of the merit revealed through Annual Confidential Reports, Record Sheets of Punishments imposed. In cases where specific charges have been framed or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case against a member of service, promotion or appointment of such member of service shall be deferred till such proceedings are concluded. On exoneration or acquittal from the charges, a member of service shall be considered for promotion or appointment with retrospective effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted, if he is otherwise qualified for such promotion.
(19) The case of a member of service whose promotion or appointment has been deferred on account of any pending 7/11
charges, shall be reopened after disposal of the charges and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits, either giving him promotion or appointment if he is exonerated or acquitted of the charges and if there is no other adverse factor to be reckoned or denying him promotion or appointment from a later date, depending upon the nature of punishment and other factors to be reckoned in other cases. In all such cases, the appointing authority shall take suo moto action within fifteen days from the date of issue of final orders in the departmental disciplinary case or criminal case.'' A reading of the aforesaid provision clearly shows that when charges are pending against a member of service, promotion or appointment of such member of service shall be deferred till such proceedings are concluded.
When the employee is exonerated or acquitted from the charges, he shall be considered for promotion or appointment with retrospective effect from the date on which his immediate junior was promoted, if he is otherwise qualified for such promotion. As per Schedule - XI, Part - A - II (19) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, in such cases, the appointing authority shall take suo motu action within 15 days from the date of issue of final orders in departmental case or criminal case.
12.As per Schedule - XI, Part - A - II (19) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, there is no need for an employee to make any representation to the appointing authority seeking promotion with retrospective effect after his exoneration of all the charges. It is the duty of the appointing authority to take suo motu action within 15 days from the date of issue of final orders in departmental case or criminal case and consider the employee for promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which when his immediate junior was promoted. 13.In the present case, the third respondent in all the writ petitions have given representation 24.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 19.11.2020 and 17.11.
2020 respectively, to the second respondent for their promotion after they were exonerated from the charges by the second respondent, vide proceedings dated 23.12.2020. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have also given representation to the second respondent on 03.05.2021 after the first respondent dropped charges against the Government employees and the teachers, who participated in the strike called by JACTOGEO, requesting the second respondent not to revert them and promote the third respondent in all the writ petitions only in future promotion i.e., for the year 2021-2022.
14.From the typed set of papers filed by the learned Government Advocate, it is seen that the third respondent in all the writ petitions gave representation dated 24.11.2020, 17.11.2020, 8/11
19.11.2020 and 17.11.2020, respectively. It is further seen that the District Collector, by proceedings dated 23.10.2020, exonerated the third respondent in all writ petitions from the charges. It is also seen from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the third respondent has stated that the second respondent considered the petitioners' representation, dated 03.05.2021 and rejected the same, vide his proceedings in nr.K.vz;.t1/15022/2019-1, dated 19.05.2021. The petitioners have not filed any reply denying the said submission made by the respondents.
15.The third respondent in the typed set of papers, filed the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 19.05.2021, bearing nr.K.vz;.t1/15022/2019-1, wherein the second respondent quoting the provision referred to above, rejected the petitioners' representation dated 03.05.2021. In the reference, the second respondent has mentioned the name of the petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.9547 of 2021 viz., S.Maria Margaret Valarmathi and three others. The petitioners, till date, have not challenged the said order even after receiving the said order on 09.06.2021. On the other hand, they had suppressed the fact that they gave representation to the second respondent. In such a case, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that without notice to the petitioners, the second respondent reverted them is contrary to the materials on record.
16.Further, from the typed set of papers filed, it is seen that the petitioners are promoted temporarily. In the said order, it has been specifically mentioned that promotion to the petitioners are purely temporary and they will not get any right and they will be reverted for want of vacancy. In case of temporary promotion and continuation of persons in the said post, the relevant provisions are Sections 47 (3) and 52 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which reads as follows:- ''47.Temporary Promotion.-
(3) A person temporarily promoted under sub-section (1) shall be replaced as soon as possible by the member of the service who is entitled to promotion under this Act.'' 52.Reversion and Re-appointment of Full Member-. A full member shall be liable to be reverted to the lower post from which he has been promoted at any time, if the number of persons so entitled for reversion is more than the number of posts available in the higher category. Explanation.- If a person who is confirmed or whose probation in a higher category has been declared as having been completed or one who is holding a post in a higher category on a regular basis, for which there is no probation, reverts from deputation or foreign service and if there is no vacancy in that category to accommodate him, the junior most person in the category appointed to the post shall be 9/11
reverted. If, however, the person reverted from deputation or foreign service himself is the junior most, he shall be reverted to the next lower category from which he was earlier promoted.
17.The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners on Section 7, 47 and 52 of the Act does not advance the case of the petitioners. Schedule - XI is framed as per Section 7 of the Act. From a reading of Schedule - XI Part - A - II
(1) and (19) extracted above, it is clear that when promotion of an employee was deferred due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, on being exonerated, the employee is entitled to promotion retrospectively. As per Section 47(3) of the Act, a person temporarily promoted shall be replaced as soon as possible by the Member of the service, who is entitled to promotion. Section 52 of the Act deals with reversion when the number of persons promoted exceed the number of vacancies. In the instant cases, the petitioners were promoted temporarily and it was made clear that they do not acquire any right and that they will be reverted without any notice.
18.From the above contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners were promoted on regular basis, even though it has been mentioned that the petitioners were promoted temporarily is without merits. The petitioners were promoted temporarily, as the promotion of the third respondents was deferred. The third respondents' promotions were deferred due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings and once they are exonerated, they are entitled to retrospective promotion. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that there were only two vacancies in each Panel year and the petitioners were reverted for want of vacancies. The reversion of the petitioners for want of vacancies is proper as per Section 52 of the Act.
19.As per Section 47(3) of the Act, a temporarily promoted person shall be replaced by a member of service, who is entitled to promotion under the Act. Section 52 of the Act empowers the authority to revert a person to the lower post from which he has been promoted at any time, when the number of persons promoted exceed the number of vacancies. In the present cases, after promotion of the third respondents, due to want of vacancy, the petitioners are rightly reverted. As per Schedule - XI, Part - A - II (1) and (19) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, the third respondent in all the writ petitions are entitled to promotion, as the second respondent exonerated them, vide his proceedings dated 23.10.2020 and the first respondent, dropped the charges levelled against them, vide G.O.(Ms)No.9, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 02.02.2021. Once they are entitled to the promotion with retrospective effect, 10/11
the petitioners, who were promoted temporarily on account of deferring the promotion of the third respondent in the writ petitions, pending charges, are not entitled to claim any right in the matter of promotion. As per Sections 47(3) and 52 of the Act, the petitioners had to be reverted for want of vacancies, when the third respondents were promoted with retrospective effect. The second respondent considering all the materials placed before him and Schedule - XI, Part - A - II (1) and (19) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, rejected the request of the petitioners, revised the Panel, reverted the petitioners, vide his separate proceedings, dated 19.05.2021 and promoted the third respondent in all the writ petitions.
The second respondent has given valid reason in the proceedings impugned in the writ petitions. There is no error in the order of the second respondent warranting interference. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To 1.The Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015. 2.The District Collector, O/o. the Collectorate Campus, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
+4 CC to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate SR-22199[F] dated 13/07/2021 +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-22289[F] dated 13/07/2021 ) Common order in 12.07.2021 ls(CO) TR(05.08.2021) 11P 8C 11/11