Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 559
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025
IN
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 23709-23710 OF 2023)
STATE OF SIKKIM AND OTHERS …..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
DR. MOOL RAJ KOTWAL …..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
J.K. Maheshwari J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Assailing the order dated 27.04.2023 passed in Writ Appeal
No. 8 of 2022 confirming the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in
Writ Petition (C) No. 14 of 2022, by High Court of Sikkim at
Gangtok, the State of Sikkim (in short ‘State’ ) has filed these
appeals. The discord between the parties is regarding grant of
benefit of leave encashment second time for the period of re-
employment of respondent after attaining the age of
1
superannuation, in particular beyond the maximum period of 300
days as prescribed.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.05.2020 cancelling the
order dated 31.05.2019 to grant leave encashment and directing
payment of sum as sanctioned, the respondent preferred writ
petition before the High Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the
same relying upon Rule 36 read with Rule 32 of ‘Sikkim
Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982’ (in short ‘Leave Rules’ ),
declaring him entitled for grant of leave encashment again for
unutilized leave during the period of re-employment. On filing the
Writ Appeal by State, it came to be dismissed by the impugned
order. Hence the present appeals by State challenging both orders
passed by learned Single Judge and Division Bench.
FACTS IN BRIEF
4. Prequel to the present litigation, the respondent was
appointed on deputation in year 1980 in the State services. On
1
attaining the age of superannuation , he retired on 31.01.2005 in
2
terms of Rule 98 of Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974 (in
short ‘Service Rules’ ) from the post of ‘Medical Advisor and Chief
1
58 years.
2
Retirement on superannuation.
2
Consultant’, working at Sir Thutob Namgyal Memorial (STNM)
Hospital, in Health Care, Human Services and Family Welfare
Department, Government of Sikkim at Gangtok. Upon his
retirement and while settling post retiral benefits, he was paid
leave encashment maximum of 300 days unutilized leave as
3
prescribed in Rule 36 of Leave Rules.
5. After retirement, the respondent was re-employed on the
same post for a period of 2 years, w.e.f. from 01.02.2005 to
31.05.2005, which was extended time to time upto 28.05.2019,
i.e., the date on which he was officially relieved. Vide Office Order
No. 710/G/DOP dated 31.05.2019 (in short ‘2019 office order’ ),
he was allowed cash equivalent to leave salary of 300 days of
earned leave standing to his credit for the period of re-employment.
6. The controversy was set into motion when the State on
scrutiny found that the Leave Rules do not provide for grant of
leave encashment to the re-employed employees second time
beyond 300 days, which was paid to them once on their retirement.
It was noticed that, leave encashment was being paid to the
employees after their retirement and ‘again’ after relieving from re-
employment, though it was not in conformity to the Leave Rules.
3
Cash payment in lieu of unutilized earned leave on the date of retirement.
3
The State Government took a decision to correct the perpetual
mistake and issued Office Memorandum No. 4528/GEN/DOP,
dated 27.02.2020 (the “clarificatory order” ), clarifying that
maximum of 300 days of leave encashment specified in Rule is
inclusive of the period of leave earned during extension of service,
re-employment etc. The said clarification is pivotal to the
controversy involved, hence, reproduced as under –
“ GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
GANGTOK
No. 4528/GEN/DOP Dated: 27/02/2020
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Clarification on leave encashment of earned
leave to Government Employees on
Extension of Service, Re-Employment etc.
Rule 36 of the Sikkim Service (Leave) Rules, 1982 provides
to a government employee who retires from service under
the Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974, cash
equivalent of leave salary in lieu of earned leave on full day
standing at his/her credit on the date of his retirement
subject to a minimum of 300 days. Therefore, a maximum
of 300 days of earned leave due at credit also includes the
period of leave earned by a Government Employee during
extension of service, Reemployment etc.
This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.
Sd/-
4
(Tashi Cho Cho) SCS
SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT ”
7. After clarification, on 31.05.2019, order extending the benefit
of cash equivalent to leave salary in lieu of 300 days of unutilized
leave standing at the credit of Mr. M.R. Kotwal, Principal Medical
Advisor (Petitioner before High Court/Respondent herein) during
the period of his re-employment was cancelled vide order dated
21.05.2020 passed by the Government of Sikkim, Department of
Personnel, Gangtok. The representation made by the respondent
was also rejected on 18.02.2022 and the Chief Accounts Officer,
Home Department, Government of Sikkim, vide letter No.
GOS/Home/Acctt./726 dated 21.03.2022 sent the information
that payment of leave encashment as prayed by the respondent
cannot be released. That is how the dispute arose, and litigation
commenced.
8. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred Writ Petition (C)
No. 14 of 2022 seeking writ in the nature of mandamus and prayed
for quashment of the Office Order No. 493/G/DOP dated
21.05.2020 issued by Department of Personnel, Government of
Sikkim, and letter no. GOS/Home/Actt./726 dated 21.03.2022
and to declare that the respondent is entitled to receive Rs.
5
20,51,100/- towards leave encashment alike similarly placed other
re-employed employees.
9. Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition observing that
Leave Rule 36 should be read in conjunction with Rule 32, making
the Leave Rules applicable to the re-employed government
servants. The phrase ‘retires from service’ in Rule 36 is broad
enough and includes the re-employed employees. It is noted that
after an order allowing to receive cash equivalent for 300 days,
withdrawal of such benefit by a subsequent office memorandum is
arbitrary. The clarificatory order couldn't nullify the right accrued
to the petitioner. While allowing the Writ Petition, the Court did
not accept the argument of the State about financial burden
because other similarly placed employees have been extended
similar benefit of second time leave encashment.
10. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred the writ appeal
which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench observing that
Rule 32 of the Leave Rules creates a legal fiction treating re-
employed and regular employee at par as if former had entered into
service for the first time, and made the Leave Rules applicable, and
consequently held that Rule 36 applies to re-employed government
servants also. The Court refused to interfere with the judgment of
6
learned Single Judge and noted that no palpable infirmity or
perversity warranting interference in intra-court appeal is made
out.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT – STATE
11. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, learned counsel representing the
appellants extensively urged that Leave Rule 36 prescribes leave
encashment maximum of 300 days after retirement on attaining
the age of superannuation as specified in Service Rules. It was
noticed that employees who were re-employed after retirement
were availing benefit of leave encashment of the leave available in
their credit after being relieved. On examining the issue, the
government found that grant of such benefit is not as per the spirit
of Rule 36 of Leave Rules, therefore, issued the office
memorandum dated 27.02.2020 clarifying the same. In
consequence to the clarificatory order, the benefit of leave
encashment allowed to the respondent was cancelled vide order
dated 21.05.2020. Accordingly, after availing the benefit of leave
encashment of maximum of 300 days on retirement, he was not
found entitled to same benefit for the period of re-employment. He
submitted that the findings of learned Single Judge in reference to
Rule 36, re-affirmed by the Division Bench are not in conformity
7
to the real intent and object to grant benefit of leave encashment
under Rules to the retired employees. Rule 32 and Rule 36 of Leave
Rules deal with different spheres and they cannot be read in
conjunction, therefore, the interpretation as made in the impugned
judgment is not correct. On independent reading of Leave Rule 36,
it is clear that a person who has attained the age of retirement as
per Service Rules, i.e., 58 years, would be entitled for leave
encashment maximum up to 300 days. The said rule does not deal
with relieving after the re-employment, rather, it merely deals with
contingency of grant of leave encashment on retirement of an
employee under Service Rules. Therefore, the findings as recorded
by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench
misinterpreting the formula of granting leave encashment to an
employee after retirement, require due indulgence and interference
in these appeals and interpretation of the rules in right
perspective.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT – EMPLOYEE
12. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr. A. Mariarputham for
the respondent submits that on relieving from re-employment,
sanction of leave encashment was allowed vide office order dated
31.05.2019. The same was cancelled vide order dated 21.05.2020
8
relying on the office memorandum dated 27.02.2020, without
notice and affording an opportunity of hearing. Further, the
rejection of representation is discriminatory and violates Article 14
of the Constitution of India because similarly situated other re-
employed relieved employees have been allowed the same benefits.
In addition, the order cancelling the benefit of leave encashment is
in violation of the principles of natural justice and without
affording opportunity of hearing, the action of the State was unfair
which has rightly been interfered with by the High Court.
13. It is further urged that Rule 32 applies to the re-employed
government servants alike an employee entered into service at first
instance. Leave Rule 36 also applies to the employees on whom
Leave Rules are applicable, however, on conjoint reading, the grant
of benefit of leave encashment, again to re-employed employee is
not prohibited. Thus, pretext taken to rectify the mistake by the
State Government cannot defeat the right of the re-employed
employees conferred under the Leave Rules. It is urged that two
Courts have rightly dealt with the interplay of Rules 32 and 36 of
Leave Rules and it does not call for any interference.
ANALYSIS AND REASONINGS
9
14. After having heard learned counsels at length and on perusal
of the material, in our view, the short question falls for our
consideration is, ‘whether an employee of the State who had
availed the benefit of leave encashment maximum of 300 days once
on attaining the age of superannuation under Rule 36 of Leave
Rules, can further be entitled for leave encashment again on
relieving after the period of re-employment?’
15. Prior to adverting to the issue and the submissions on merits,
it is necessary to refer the relevant Rules governing the controversy
involved in the present case. The retirement on attaining the age
of superannuation has been prescribed in the Service Rules and
the relevant Rules are reproduced below for ready reference –
“Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974
98. Retirement on Superannuation –
(1) The date of retirement on superannuation of any
Government Servant in the regular service shall be the
afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains
the age of 58 years. The Government retains the right to
change the prescribed age of retirement.
Provided that the Government Servant who had attained the
age of 58 years or more on the date of issue of this
Notification shall retire from the service with effect from the
st
afternoon of 31 October 1983.
xx xx xx xx
10
Explanation. – For the purpose of this rule, a Government
Servant whose date of birth falls on the first day of any
month shall have attained the age of fifty-eight years on the
afternoon of the last day of the preceding month.
xx xx xx xx
102. A Government Servant, who is retired according to
the provisions of rule 98, may be re-employed by the
Government if it is satisfied that such employment is
definitely in the interest of the Government and that the
Government Servant is physically and mentally fit. The
period for reemployment shall be determined by the
Government.
Provided that the day fixed plus the retiring pension shall
not, on the day of re-employment, exceed the pay last
drawn by the Government Servant before retirement, and
also that the pay plus the retiring pension shall not, at any
time, exceed the maximum of the pay scale of the post held
by him during the period of re-employment. ”
The said Rule 98 deals with superannuation from regular
service and specifies the date of retirement which would be the
afternoon of the last day of the month on which the employee
attains the age of 58 years. Therefore, the emphasis can be
gathered from the word ‘date of retirement’, ‘from regular service’,
‘the last day’ and ‘on which the employee attains 58 years’.
Further, as per Rule 102, if an employee has retired under Rule
98, he/she may be re-employed if such re-employment is in the
interest of government and retired government employee is
11
physically and mentally fit. Therefore, the re-employment is not a
right of the retired employee, but on the discretion and may be
exercised if service of an employee is required in public interest by
the government.
16. The leave encashment is governed by Sikkim Government
Services (Leave) Rules, the relevant rules thereof are reproduced
below:-
“Sikkim Government Services (Leave) Rules, 1982
6. Earning of leave –
Save as otherwise provided in these rules, leave shall be
earned for the period for which a Government servant is on
duty only.
Explanation I. – Duty includes period of casual leave,
departmental examination leave under rule 25, in service
training joining time, quarantine leave but does not include
the periods of Extraordinary leave, examination leave,
study leave, maternity leave and all other kinds of leave
including special disability leave for accidental injury.
Explanation II. – For the purpose of this rule the period
spent on deputation to autonomous bodies, public
undertakings shall count as duty only if contribution
towards leave salary and pension are paid either by the
borrowing employer or the government servant .
17. Earned leave for Government servants serving
in departments other than the vacation department –
12
(1) Save otherwise provided in rule 27, all Government
servants shall be eligible for earned leave on full pay to the
extent on one-eleventh of the period spent on duty.
(2) In addition, a Government servant shall be entitled
to half pay leave of 20 days in respect of each completed
year of service which may be granted on medical certificate
or on private affairs.
Note – A Government servant shall cease to earn or
accumulate leave under sub-rule (1) above when earned
leave at credit exceeds 300 days.
18. Calculation of earned leave –
In calculating earned leave referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule
17, the actual number of days of duty shall first be counted
and then multiplied by 1/11 and the product expressed in
days. The fraction in the earned leave shall be rounded off
to the nearest day that is fraction below half a day shall be
ignored and that a fraction exceeding half a day or more
shall be reckoned as one day.
31. Leave during a period of extension of service
–
Where the services of a government servant has been
extended in the interest of public service beyond the date of
his retirement, such government servant may be granted
earned leave subject to a maximum of 300 days, as follow
–
(i) during the period of extension, any earned leave due
in respect of that period of such extension and, to the
extent necessary, the earned leave which could have
been granted to him under sub-rule (2) of rule 28 had
he retired on the date of retirement;
(ii) after the expiry of the period of extension –
13
(a) the earned leave which could have been
granted to him under sub-rule (2) of rule 28 had he
retired on the date of retirement decreased by the
amount of such leave availed of during the period of
extension; and
(b) any leave earned during the period of
extension as has been formally applied for a
preparatory to final retirement in sufficient time
during the extension and refused to him on account
of the exigencies of the public service.
32. Leave during a period of re-employment after
retirement –
In the case of a Government servant re-employed after
retirement, the provisions of these rules shall apply as if he
had entered government service for the first time on the date
of his re-employment.
xx xx xx xx
36. Cash payment in lieu of unutilized earned
leave and half pay leave on the date of retirement –
The Government may sanction to a Government servant
who retires from service under the Sikkim Government
Service Rules, 1974, cash equivalent of the leave salary in
lieu of the period of earned leave on full pay standing at his
credit on the date of his retirement subject to a maximum of
300 days. ”
17. On bare reading of the Leave Rules, it is clear that
government servant may earn leave for the period on which he is
on duty. Under Rule 17, a government servant in department may
th
be eligible for earned leave on full pay to the extent of 1/11 of the
14
period spent on duty. In addition, he may also be entitled 20 days
half-pay leave in each calendar year on medical ground or on
private affairs. The note appended to it makes it clear that on
accumulation of maximum of 300 days of earned leave, it may not
be accrued in leave account of an employee. Rule 18 has relevance
to the extent of how calculation of the earned leave can be made
for the purpose of Rule 17(1).
18. Rule 31 applies for extension of service which is not specified
in Rule 102 of the Service Rules. Thus, a government servant
whose service is extended may be granted earned leave subject to
a maximum of 300 days including the extended period of service.
Therefore, in case of extension of service, Leave Rule 36 applies
with a rigor that on adding the period of extension of service, leave
encashment beyond 300 days is not permitted. As per Rule 32 of
the Leave Rules, if the government servant is re-employed after
retirement, the provision of Leave Rules shall apply as if he had
entered in government service for the first time on the date of re-
employment for the purpose of granting leave during the period of
re-employment. To understand the inter-play of these rules, it's
important to examine them carefully.
15
19. Rule 36 quoted as above consists of two limbs – (i) the
retirement of the government servant ought to be under Sikkim
Government Service Rules, 1974 and; (ii) the earned leave on full
pay standing at his credit on the date of retirement, maximum of
300 days may be granted. On fulfillment of these twin
requirements, the retired government servant may be allowed cash
equivalent to leave salary at his credit for leave encashment
maximum upto 300 days.
20. On analysis of the first limb as indicated, it is clear that the
government servant ought to retire under the Service Rules. The
government servant as specified in Leave Rule 36 for sanction of
earned leave are those who are in regular service as employed in
terms of the Service Rules. The re-employed government servants
are not included in the said Rule, however, inclusive benefit of
leave encashment may be available only to those employees whose
services have been extended as per Rule 31 of Leave Rules, subject
to a maximum of 300 days. It is not out of place to note that Rule
99 of Service Rules deals with compulsory retirement in public
interest and Rule 99A with voluntary retirement. The former may
be on discretion of the government analyzing the utility of service
16
in public interest, while later on a choice or request of the employee
to continue in regular service after completion of 20 years.
21. The re-employment in the service has been prescribed in Rule
102 of Service Rules, by which, the government servant who stood
retired under Rule 98 but not under Rules 99 or 99A, on the
discretion of the government. In the said rule, the entitlement of
salary has also been prescribed. After perusal of the above referred
rules, mere applicability of Leave Rule 32 would not ipso facto
bring an employee within the connotation “government servant” to
whom Leave Rule 36 applies. The said fact is discernable from the
language employed in Leave Rule 32 which specifies “government
servant re-employed after retirement” and “the provision of these
rules shall apply as if he had entered in government service for the
first time on the date of his re-employment”. So, Leave Rule 36
shall apply to those government servants who were in regular
service prior to their retirement upto attaining the age of
superannuation, i.e., 58 years.
22. The second limb of Rule 36 of Leave Rules makes it clear that
an employee may get cash equivalent of the period of earned leave
on full pay maximum of 300 days at his credit on the date of
retirement. Meaning thereby, the benefit of cash equivalent to leave
salary which is in other words known as leave encashment, is
17
available on retirement to a regular government servant, maximum
upto 300 days, inclusive of those whose service has been extended
and for the purpose of Rule 31 of Leave Rules. The language of
Leave Rule 36 makes it clear that the unutilized earned leave
which is in the credit of the employee on the date of retirement,
including extension of service, maximum upto 300 days may be
granted. By using the words “the government may sanction to a
government servant who retires from service under the Sikkim
Government Service Rules, 1974”, makes the legislative intent
clear that the government servant can get leave encashment on
retirement from regular service and not on relieving after re-
employment. Thus, after granting leave encashment once on
retirement to a maximum of 300 days, the employee cannot get
benefit of leave encashment second time in lieu of his relieving on
completing the period of re-employment.
23. The language of Leave Rule 32 makes it clear that grant of
leave during the period of re-employment shall be alike a new entry
of an employee in service on the date of re-employment, whereas,
Leave Rule 36 specifies cash payment of un-utilized earned leave
and half pay leave on the date of retirement of a regular
government servant subject to a maximum of 300 days. In view of
the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation to say that, Rule
18
32 cannot be read in a manner to revive the 300 days of unutilized
leave afresh for the re-employed employees who have already
availed the benefit of leave encashment maximum of 300 days
during regular service. As such, there is no interplay of Rule 32
with Rule 36 and both are independent and apply in different
spheres. The unutilized leave in credit beyond period of 300 days
during re-employment would not be inclusive for leave encashment
under Rule 32 of Leave Rules. Therefore, in our view Rule 36
cannot be read in conjunction to Rule 32.
24. In view of the above discussions, learned Single Judge was
not correct to interpret Rule 32 and 36 by applying deeming fiction
for the re-employed government servant. Hence, those findings
cannot be countenanced, and the Division Bench erred in
affirming the same. In our opinion, Leave Rule 32 does not ipso
facto deal with the applicability of Leave Rule 36 for grant of leave
encashment.
25. In the said sequel, the philosophy and purpose of granting
encashment of unutilized earned leave also warrants attention.
Leave encashment is a legal entitlement that exists within the
framework of service law and in the welfare of the employee. It
allows employees to receive a monetary benefit in exchange for
leave they have earned but not taken during regular employment.
19
This right is based on the principle of deferred compensation to an
employee who has not taken leaves and served, for which the
employer must compensate not only for his/her work, but also for
benefits of leave accumulated over time limited to 300 days
maximum. This entitlement is often established in statutory
provisions, service rules (such as Rule 36 of the Leave Rules) or
employment contracts, ensuring that employees are fairly
compensated for their unutilized leave.
26. A three-judges Bench of this Court in ‘State of Rajasthan
and Another Vs. Senior Higher Secondary School,
4
Lacchmangarh and Others’ , although in context of Section 29
of Rajasthan Non-Government Education Institutions Act, 1989,
interpreted Leave Encashment as ‘nothing but salary for the un-
availed leave to the credit of the employee’ . Nonetheless, something
more is required to understand the full import behind grant of
Leave Encashment, which is the benefit after retirement to a
devoted employee. Jurisprudentially, leave encashment is
grounded in two key principles: equity and economic security. The
principle of equity ensures that employees who forgo their right to
take leave for the benefit of the organization are not deprived of its
4
(2005) 10 SCC 346, (Para 21)
20
monetary value. The principle of economic security treats leave
encashment as a form of deferred wages, similar to gratuity or
pension benefits. This reinforces the employer’s duty to maintain
fair labour practices and protects employees’ financial rights.
27. Interpreting leave encashment provisions goes beyond
financial compensation and connects to broader legal principles of
dignity and welfare during service. However, such interpretations
must carefully balance the interests of both employees and the
financial stability of the organization, especially when public
exchequer is involved. Courts must tread carefully to prevent
employees from claiming leave encashment multiple times for the
same accrual, which could lead to unjust enrichment and may go
against the public interest of largesse.
28. Therefore, while leave encashment ensures that extra-
ordinary work ethic of an employee is rewarded, it must be applied
in a way that upholds both employee rights and institutional
sustainability. Naturally, courts must interpret leave encashment
rules and statutes in a manner that prevents undue financial
burden on employers while ensuring that employees receive what
they are lawfully entitled to.
29. Thus, Leave Rules recognize benefit of leave encashment to a
government servant whose service has been extended and who has
21
retired from regular service under the Service Rules, but not to the
re-employed retired government servant. Therefore, the leave
encashment is permissible maximum upto 300 days of leave and
not beyond as on the date of retirement, including the case of
extension of service.
30. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, in our
considered opinion, clarificatory order issued by State in the
matter of grant of leave encashment for the earned leave to
government employees on ‘extension of service’ subject to
maximum period of 300 days and not beyond, is completely in
consonance with the spirit of Rules 31, 32 and 36 of Leave Rules.
31. In the present case, the respondent was in the regular
employment and superannuated on completion of 58 years of age
on 31.01.2005 under Service Rules. He was granted benefit of
leave encashment maximum of 300 days under Rule 36 of the
Leave Rules. On re-employment, he was continued for more than
14 years and relieved on 28.05.2019. On relieving after re-
employment, the benefit of leave encashment was again
sanctioned on 31.05.2019. The government on realising the
mistake and interplay of Rules 32 and 36 with the spirit of the
Leave Rules, issued clarificatory order on 27.02.2020 denying the
22
benefit of leave encashment beyond 300 days, is in consonance
with the spirit of Rule 36, which is just and reasonable to the
extent as indicated above. Therefore, cancellation of sanction of
leave encashment order dated 31.05.2019 is also in consonance to
the law.
32. Lastly, it is impressed upon that the leave encashment
benefit granted to the respondent has been cancelled without
affording due opportunity, and in violation of natural justice. In
our view, the said argument appears attractive on first blush, but
of no substance. When the respondent is unable to justify his claim
of leave encashment and unable to set forth his right even allowing
him reasonable opportunity, in our view, no prejudice was caused
in cancelling the order granting leave encashment second time. As
such, the argument of not granting an opportunity and violation of
natural justice is hereby repelled.
33. In view of the foregoing, the irresistible conclusion can be
drawn is that, under Rule 36 of Leave Rules, a regular government
servant, if retires under Sikkim Government Service Rules, 1974
would be entitled for leave encashment maximum for 300 days. If
the government servant is re-employed after 58 years of age and
continued for a long time and get leaves accumulated during the
23
period of re-employment, he/she cannot get benefit of leave
encashment second time merely because he/she is having leave in
his/her credit during the period of re-employment. Consequently,
the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench stand set-aside and both these appeals stand allowed. The
pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. In the
facts, there is no order as to costs.
…….…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…….…………….…………J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
24