AJIT SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA

[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5115/2025
Omkar Bharti S/o Late Shri Bachan Bharti, Aged About 67 Years,
R/o- Vill Po - Chanar, District- Sirohi. (Office Address- Retired
From Service On 31-1-2016 Worked As Electrician In Mes Mount
Abu Air Force).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Government Of
India, Ministry Of Defence, Ne Delhi- 110001.
2. The Pcda, Draupdi Ghat, Allahabad-211003.
3. Assistant Garrison Engineer, Mount Abu (B And R) Air
Force, Mount Abu- 307501.
4. Garrison Engineer, Air Force-2 Military Engineer Service,
Air Force Station Jodhpur-242011.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4929/2025
Ajit Singh S/o Late Kanti Singh, Aged About 65 Years, 44C,
Nehru Colony, Mach Gaun, Abu Road, District Sirohi, Rajasthan,
(Office Address- Retired From Service On 31-7-2016 Worked As
Electrician In Mes Mount Abu Air Force.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Government Of
India, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Pcda, Draupdi Ghat, Allahabad- 211003.
3. Assistant Garrison Engineer, Mount Abu, (B And R) Air
Force, Mount Abu- 307501
4. Garrison Engineer, Air Force-2 Military Engineer Service,
Air Force Station Jodhpur-242011
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Prasad Singh
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pintu Pareek
Ms. Yukti Joshi for
Mr. Vivek Shrimali
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(2 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments
15.05.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved
15.05.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced:
Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement
19.06.2026
Reportable
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. At the outset, this Court notes that the present batch of writ
petitions, namely D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5115/2025 (Omkar
Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
4929/2025 (Ajit Singh v. Union of India & Ors.), arise out of
substantially similar orders passed by the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, and involve an identical
controversy relating to entitlement of the petitioners to the
differential commuted value of pension consequent upon revision
of pension pursuant to the recommendations of the 7th Central
Pay Commission.
1.1. This Court further notes that the factual matrix, the
governing statutory provisions, the Office Memoranda relied upon
by the parties, the submissions advanced, and the questions of
law arising for consideration are substantially identical in both
matters. In such circumstances, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
5115/2025 (Omkar Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.) is
treated as the lead case. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are
being decided by this common judgment. The facts are being
noticed from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5115/2025 (Omkar Bharti
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(3 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
v. Union of India & Ors.), and the conclusions arrived at herein
shall govern the connected matter as well, unless specifically
indicated otherwise.
1.2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate
writ, order or direction:-
(A) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned
order dated 21.10.2024 (Annexure-4) and impugned order
dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure-3) may kindly be declared
illegal, unjust and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The
case (OA) may kindly be decided on merits.
(B) By writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be
directed to pay revised commutation of pension in accordance
with 7th CPC sanctioned pension Rs.22,896/- with all
consequential benefits.
(C) That by order or direction the restriction in respect of
option may kindly be removed and the petitioner may be
allowed to receive additional commutation of pension and
pursuant of it new PPO may kindly be issued.
(D) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be
deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this
case may kindly be also passed in favour of the humble
petitioner.
(E) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour
of the petitioner."
1.3. Before proceeding to examine the controversy on merits, this
Court notes that certain dates and particulars reflected in the
prayer clause of the writ petition do not appear to be in complete
consonance with the record placed before this Court. However,
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(4 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
from a holistic reading of the pleadings, annexures and the reliefs
sought, it is evident that the present writ petition assails the order
dated 22.10.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application
No.171/2022, as well as the speaking order dated 10.05.2022
whereby the petitioner's claim for grant of revised commutation of
pension consequent upon implementation of the recommendations
of the 7th Central Pay Commission came to be rejected. The
present petition is, therefore, being considered in the aforesaid
factual backdrop.
2. Brief facts of the case, as borne out from the pleadings and
the material available on record, are that the petitioner was
initially appointed as a Switch Board Attendant (SBA) on
05.11.1979 under the Military Engineer Services and, during the
course of service, came to be promoted to the post of Electrician.
Upon rendering more than thirty-six years of service, the
petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from
service on 31.01.2016.
2.1. Consequent upon his retirement, the petitioner was
sanctioned pension in accordance with the then prevailing pay
structure. The pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.9,475/-
per month w.e.f. 01.02.2016 and the commuted value of pension
was also released on the basis of the said pension.
2.2. Subsequent thereto, the recommendations of the 7th Central
Pay Commission came to be implemented with effect from
01.01.2016. In consequence thereof, the pensionary benefits of
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(5 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
the petitioner were revised and a revised PPO came to be issued,
whereby the pension payable to the petitioner stood enhanced.
2.3. The grievance of the petitioner arises from the fact that while
the revised pension and consequential arrears were released in
terms of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission,
the commuted value of pension already paid to the petitioner was
not correspondingly revised. According to the petitioner, upon
retrospective revision of pension, he became entitled to the
differential amount of commutation in terms of Rule 10 of the
Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981.
2.4. Aggrieved by the non-release of the differential commuted
value of pension, the petitioner submitted representations before
the competent authorities. As the grievance remained
unaddressed, the petitioner approached the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, by way of an Original
Application seeking redressal of his claim.
2.5. The said proceedings were disposed of with a direction to the
competent authority to consider and decide the representation of
the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant thereto,
the competent authority passed a speaking order dated
10.05.2022 rejecting the petitioner's claim for grant of differential
commutation of pension.
2.6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid speaking order dated
10.05.2022, the petitioner instituted Original Application
No.171/2022 before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(6 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
Jodhpur Bench, challenging the rejection of his claim and seeking
consequential benefits.
2.7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions
advanced by the parties and the material available on record,
dismissed the Original Application vide order dated 22.10.2024.
The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order as well
as the speaking order dated 10.05.2022, has preferred the
present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2016 and, therefore,
became entitled to the benefits flowing from the implementation
of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission, which
were made effective from 01.01.2016.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that though the pension of
the petitioner was subsequently revised and arrears arising
therefrom were released by the respondents, the differential
commuted value of pension consequent upon such revision was
not paid, thereby resulting in denial of a legitimate monetary
benefit to the petitioner.
3.2. Learned counsel contended that Rule 10 of the Central Civil
Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 specifically
contemplates a situation where the pension of a pensioner, who
has already commuted a fraction of his pension, is retrospectively
revised and enhanced pursuant to a decision of the Government.
It was submitted that in such circumstances, the pensioner
becomes entitled to the difference between the commuted value
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(7 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
calculated on the basis of the enhanced pension and the
commuted value already authorized.
3.3. Learned counsel argued that once the pension of the
petitioner stood revised retrospectively pursuant to the
implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay
Commission, the respondents were under an obligation to re-work
the commuted value of pension and release the differential
amount payable to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1981.
3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have
erroneously relied upon the option exercised by the petitioner
pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 24.10.2016. According
to learned counsel, the said option cannot operate to defeat a
substantive statutory entitlement flowing from Rule 10 of the
Rules of 1981.
3.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner did not
derive any undue benefit by seeking recalculation of the
commuted value and merely seeks payment of the amount which
became payable consequent upon retrospective revision of
pension. It was thus urged that the speaking order dated
10.05.2022 as well as the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the
learned Tribunal deserve to be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents
opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner retired
from service on 31.01.2016 and, upon retirement, was sanctioned
pension and commutation of pension strictly in accordance with
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(8 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
the rules applicable on the date of retirement. The commuted
value of pension was duly calculated and paid to the petitioner
and, therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the action of the
respondents.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that after acceptance of
the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission, the
Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare issued Office
Memorandum dated 24.10.2016 providing a special dispensation
to pensioners who had retired during the period between
01.01.2016 and 04.08.2016, i.e. between the effective date and
the notified date of the revised pay structure.
4.3. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of the aforesaid
Office Memorandum, such pensioners were afforded an option
either to retain the commutation already received on the basis of
pre-revised pension or to seek commutation of the additionally
commutable portion arising on account of revision of pension. The
petitioner was also extended the benefit of the said option.
4.4. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner consciously
exercised the option to retain the commutation already received
on the basis of the pre-revised pension and did not opt for
commutation of the additional pension that became commutable
upon revision. Having exercised such option voluntarily and with
full knowledge of its consequences, the petitioner is estopped from
subsequently seeking a contrary benefit.
4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that pursuant to
implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(9 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
Commission, the pension of the petitioner was duly revised and all
consequential arrears admissible under the applicable rules were
released. Thus, no pecuniary loss has been caused to the
petitioner except to the extent of the claim now sought to be
raised contrary to the option already exercised by him.
4.6. Learned counsel contended that Rule 10 of the Central Civil
Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 cannot be read in
isolation and must be construed harmoniously with the relaxation
and option mechanism introduced by the Office Memorandum
dated 24.10.2016. It was submitted that once the petitioner
elected one of the alternatives specifically made available to him,
he cannot subsequently seek withdrawal of such option and claim
benefits flowing from the alternative not chosen by him.
4.7. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal has considered all relevant facts, the
applicable rules, the Office Memorandum governing the field and
the option exercised by the petitioner, and has rightly rejected the
claim. It was, therefore, prayed that the present writ petition be
dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. This Court observes that before examining the legal contentions
advanced by the parties, it would be apposite to examine the
financial implications arising out of the rival stands in order to
ascertain whether the petitioner has, in fact, suffered any
monetary prejudice.
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(10 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
6.1. This Court notes that at the time of retirement, the
petitioner's basic pension was fixed at Rs.9,475/- per month. Upon
commutation of 40% of the pension, a sum of Rs.3,790/- per
month stood commuted, resulting in payment of a lump-sum
commuted value of approximately Rs.3,72,655/-. Consequently,
the petitioner became entitled to receive a residual pension of
Rs.5,685/- per month (Rs.9,475/- minus Rs.3,790/-).
6.2. Subsequently, pursuant to implementation of the
recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission, the
petitioner's pension stood revised to Rs.26,000/- per month.
However, the petitioner elected to retain the commutation already
received on the basis of the pre-revised pension and did not opt
for commutation of the additionally commutable portion arising
out of the revised pension.
6.3. As a consequence thereof, the deduction on account of
commutation continued to remain relatable to the amount already
commuted, namely Rs.3,790/- per month. Thus, against the
revised pension of Rs.26,000/-, the petitioner continued to receive
pension after deduction of only Rs.3,790/-, resulting in a monthly
pension of Rs.22,210/-.
6.4. Had the petitioner opted for commutation on the basis of the
revised pension of Rs.26,000/-, the commutable portion would
have increased to Rs.10,400/- per month, being 40% of the
revised pension. In such an eventuality, while the petitioner would
have received an additional lump-sum commuted value, the
monthly pension payable to him during the commutation period
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(11 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
would have stood reduced to Rs.15,600/- per month (Rs.26,000/-
minus Rs.10,400/-).
6.5. For ready reference, the comparative position is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
Option Exercised
Revised Commutation
Particulars
by Petitioner
Now Claimed
Basic Pension Rs.26,000/- Rs.26,000/-
Monthly Commutation
Rs.3,790/- Rs.10,400/-
Deduction
Monthly Pension
Rs.22,210/- Rs.15,600/-
Payable
Additional Lump-sum
Nil Approx. Rs.6.50 Lakhs
Commutation
6.6. This Court thus finds that the petitioner was not deprived of
the benefit of revision of pension under the 7th Central Pay
Commission. On the contrary, by retaining the commutation
already received on the basis of the pre-revised pension, the
petitioner continued to draw a substantially higher monthly
pension than what would have been payable had the revised
commutation been opted for. The petitioner's grievance, therefore,
is not founded upon denial of revised pension or pensionary
arrears, but upon a claim for an additional lump-sum commuted
value despite having elected to retain the benefit of the earlier
commutation structure.
6.7. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court finds that the
principal controversy requiring adjudication is not with respect to
the calculation of pension or the quantum of commuted value
payable. The real issue pertains to the interplay between Rule 5,
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(12 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension)
Rules, 1981 and the Office Memorandum dated 24.10.2016 issued
by the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare.
6.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that Rule 10 of the Rules of 1981 confers a statutory entitlement
upon the petitioner to receive the differential commuted value
consequent upon retrospective revision of pension and, therefore,
such entitlement could not have been curtailed by an executive
instruction in the nature of the Office Memorandum dated
24.10.2016.
6.9. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be
appropriate to first refer to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1981, which
reads as under:-
"5. Limit on commutation of pension
(1) A Government servant shall be entitled to commute
for a lumpsum payment [of an amount not exceeding
forty per cent] of his pension.
(2) In an application for commutation [in Form 5 of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or in Form
1 or Form 1-A or Form 2 of these rules], as the case
may be, an Applicant shall indicate the [percentage] of
pension which he desires to commute and may either
indicate the maximum limit of [forty per cent] of
pension or such lower limit as he may desire to
commute.
(3) If the percentage of pension to be commuted results in
fraction of rupee, such fraction shall be ignored for the
purpose of commutation."
6.10. A plain reading of Rule 5 demonstrates that commutation of
pension is fundamentally founded upon the volition and election of
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(13 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
the pensioner. The Rule does not mandate automatic
commutation. Rather, it requires the pensioner to make an
application and indicate the extent of pension which he desires to
commute, subject to the maximum permissible limit. The concept
of informed choice is thus embedded in the statutory scheme
itself.
6.11. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1981, on which reliance has been
placed by the petitioner, reads as under:-
" 10. Retrospective revision of final pension
An applicant who has commuted a [percentage] of his
final pension and after commutation his pension has been
revised and enhanced retrospectively as a result of
Government's decision, the applicant shall be paid the
difference between the commuted value determined with
reference to enhanced pension and the commuted value
already authorized. For the payment of difference, the
applicant shall not be required to apply afresh."
6.12. This Court observes that Rule 10 merely provides the
consequence that follows where a pension already commuted is
subsequently revised and enhanced retrospectively. The provision
dispenses with the necessity of filing a fresh application for
payment of the differential amount. However, Rule 10 cannot be
read in isolation divorced from the overall statutory framework,
particularly Rule 5, which recognizes and preserves the
pensioner's right of election in matters relating to commutation.
6.13. It is in this backdrop that the Office Memorandum dated
24.10.2016 assumes significance. The said Office Memorandum
was issued to address the peculiar situation arising out of
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(14 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
retrospective implementation of the recommendations of the 7th
Central Pay Commission in respect of employees who had retired
between 01.01.2016 and 04.08.2016. The Office Memorandum did
not take away any benefit available under the Rules of 1981;
rather, it afforded such pensioners a specific option either to retain
the commutation already received on the basis of the pre-revised
pension or to avail the benefit of commutation relatable to the
additionally commutable portion arising out of revision of pension.
6.14. This Court finds that the Office Memorandum neither
overrides nor amends Rule 10. On the contrary, it operates in a
supplementary field by facilitating the exercise of choice in a
transitional situation created by retrospective revision of pension.
The Office Memorandum, therefore, harmoniously co-exists with
the statutory rules and cannot be said to be repugnant thereto.
6.15. This Court further observes that the claim raised by the
petitioner proceeds on an inherently selective application of the
revised pensionary regime. The petitioner seeks payment of the
enhanced commuted value calculated on the basis of the revised
pension sanctioned pursuant to the recommendations of the 7th
Central Pay Commission, but at the same time seeks to retain the
financial consequences flowing from the commutation already
exercised on the basis of the pre-revised pension.
6.16. This Court finds that commutation of pension is not a
severable or standalone benefit capable of being selectively
enforced. The grant of an enhanced commuted value necessarily
carries with it the corresponding consequence of a proportionately
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(15 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
higher deduction from the monthly pension during the
commutation period. The two constitute integral parts of the same
statutory arrangement and cannot be artificially separated.
6.17. In the present case, while the petitioner seeks the benefit of
additional commuted value relatable to the revised pension of
Rs.26,000/-, he does not seek recalculation of the monthly
commutation deduction on the same basis. Acceptance of such a
contention would result in the petitioner receiving the additional
lump-sum benefit attached to the revised pension while
simultaneously retaining the advantage of a lower deduction
relatable to the pre-revised pension. Such a consequence would
confer a dual and unintended benefit which neither the Rules of
1981 nor the Office Memorandum dated 24.10.2016 contemplate.
6.18. This Court is therefore of the view that the petitioner cannot
be permitted to adopt only that part of the revised commutation
framework which is financially advantageous to him while
disclaiming the corresponding obligations and consequences
necessarily attached thereto. Such a course would be contrary to
the scheme governing commutation of pension and would result in
an inequitable and anomalous outcome.
6.19. This Court further observes that the doctrine of election is a
well-recognized principle in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683, Rajasthan
State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation
Ltd. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd.,
(2013) 5 SCC 470 and State of Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(16 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
Sandhu, (2014) 15 SCC 144 has consistently held that a party
cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously, nor can such
party accept benefits flowing from a particular course of action
and thereafter challenge the very foundation thereof for securing
an additional advantage.
6.20. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the petitioner consciously elected to
retain the commutation already received on the basis of the pre-
revised pension and thereby enjoyed the corresponding benefit of
drawing a substantially higher monthly pension. Having accepted
and acted upon such option, the petitioner cannot now seek the
additional lump-sum commuted value relatable to the alternative
option which he consciously declined.
6.21. This Court further finds that the petitioner was granted the
benefit of revision of pension under the recommendations of the
7th Central Pay Commission and was also afforded an opportunity
to exercise an option in relation to the additionally commutable
portion of pension. Having exercised such option voluntarily, the
petitioner is bound by the consequences flowing therefrom.
7. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the present
writ petition. The present writ petition D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
5115/2025 (Omkar Bharti v. Union of India & Ors.), is dismissed .
7.1. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the connected writ
petition, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4929/2025 (Ajit Singh v.
Union of India & Ors.), is also dismissed .
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)

(17 of 17)
[2026:RJ-JD:26500-DB] [CW-5115/2025]
7.2. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 19/06/2026 at 03:22:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/07/2026 at 12:04:24 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)