R. K. Bansal vs Bank Of Baroda And Ors.

$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 12 May, 2026.
+ W.P.(C) 683/2020
R. K. BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohammad Sajid, Advocate.

versus

BANK OF BARODA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Mr. Lovelesh
Kukreja, Mrs. Kajal Ashok Mishra,
Advocates for R-1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):
1. R.K. Bansal, the Petitioner, served the erstwhile Dena Bank and,
st
when he reached superannuation on 31 March, 2017, held the post of
Deputy General Manager. A disciplinary proceeding, initiated shortly before
his retirement, was continued thereafter and culminated in the order dated
th
12 February, 2018, by which the Bank imposed upon him the penalty of
compulsory retirement, to operate from the date of superannuation. The
Petitioner states that he has challenged that penalty in separate proceedings.
th
The present writ petition only assails the order dated 20 December, 2019,
whereby the Petitioner was informed that his pension had been reduced in
accordance with Regulation 33 of the Dena Bank (Employees’) Pension
Regulations, 1995. The question that arises is whether the Bank could
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 1 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

lawfully reduce his full pension otherwise admissible to him, to two-thirds
pension.
Facts
th
2. On 17 March, 2017, a charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner in
relation to the account of H.V. Metal Arc Pvt. Ltd. The allegations pertained
to his tenure as Zonal Manager, member of ZO-CAC, and Chairman of ZO-
CAC, New Delhi Zone. Since the proceedings could not be completed
st
before his retirement on 31 March, 2017, Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Dena
Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 was invoked. The inquiry
authority found two charges proved, namely, violation of Bank rules and
procedures in performance of official duties, and failure to take requisite
steps to protect the interest of the Bank.
th
3. By memorandum dated 12 February, 2018, the disciplinary authority
imposed upon the Petitioner the penalty of “compulsory retirement from
st
Bank’s service as on date of superannuation i.e. 31 March, 2017”. The
st
disciplinary order recorded that the account had slipped into NPA on 31
December, 2014 and that the Bank was exposed to a “likely loss” of Rs.5.75
crores plus uncharged interest. The order, however, neither quantified any
amount recoverable from the Petitioner nor directed recovery from pension
or ordered withholding or withdrawal thereof. Nor did it state that the
Petitioner would be paid only two-third of the pension otherwise admissible
to him.
4. The Petitioner was paid full pension till May 2018, but subsequently,
with effect from June 2018, his basic pension was reduced from Rs.40,080
per month to Rs.26,720 per month, without any order, reasons or
communication. The Bank disputes this version. The Bank states that the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 2 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

pension was worked out at Rs.40,080 per month, but, “in view of the
decision of the Board”, two-third pension of Rs.26,720 per month was
st
sanctioned with effect from 1 April, 2017 under Regulation 33 of the Dena
Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995.
5. The Petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.(C) 9918/2018,
th
which was disposed of by order dated 27 September, 2019, directing the
Bank to treat the writ petition as a representation and dispose it of within
eight weeks.
th
6. Pursuant thereto, the Bank passed the impugned order dated 20
December, 2019, reciting the disciplinary history and relying upon
Regulation 33 of the Pension Regulations. It was concluded that, after
following due process under the Pension Regulations, pension had already
been correctly sanctioned and disbursed. The representation was, therefore,
rejected as being devoid of merit. The order did not state why full pension
was denied or disclose the material considered by the competent authority. It
did not record any independent assessment of the Petitioner’s service record,
the nature of misconduct, the extent of loss, or the absence or presence of
fraud or personal gain. It also did not disclose whether the Board of
Directors had been consulted before the decision to award less than full
pension.
Contentions
7. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Regulation 33 does not make
two-third pension an automatic consequence of compulsory retirement, but
only prescribes the minimum pension payable. If less than full pension is to
be granted, prior consultation with the Board of Directors under Regulation
33(2) is mandatory. The impugned order, it is submitted, fails this
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 3 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

requirement, as the Bank had already decided to restrict the Petitioner to
two-third pension before placing the matter before the Board, rendering the
exercise a mere post-decisional endorsement rather than meaningful
consultation.
8. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the penalty order dated
th
12 February, 2018 concluded the disciplinary proceedings. If the Bank
intended to reduce pension further, it had to pass a reasoned order under
Regulation 33 after following the prescribed procedure. The reduction, it is
urged, could not be treated as an automatic consequence of compulsory
retirement, as Regulation 33 confers discretion between two-third pension
and full pension, which must be exercised on relevant material and for
recorded reasons.
9. It is further submitted that Regulation 48 cannot be pressed into
service to defend the impugned reduction as it operates in a distinct field. It
enables withholding, withdrawal, or recovery from pension where pecuniary
loss caused to the Bank is sought to be visited upon the pensioner in the
circumstances contemplated by the Regulation. The Petitioner, however,
was not subjected to any determination under Regulation 48. No quantified
loss was put to him for recovery from pension. No separate notice was
issued proposing withholding, withdrawal, or adjustment of pension on that
th
basis. The order dated 20 December, 2019 also does not purport to be an
order under Regulation 48. It rests, if at all, on Regulation 33. The Bank,
therefore, cannot invoke Regulation 48 in the counter affidavit to supply a
foundation which the impugned order itself does not contain.
10. Counsel for the Petitioner also places reliance on the Staff
Accountability Policy of Dena Bank. He submits that clause 20.1.2 of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 4 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

said Policy recognises that, in cases other than fraud or involving honesty or
integrity, compulsory retirement may be imposed instead of dismissal or
removal so that the employee may retain retiral benefits such as pension,
provident fund and gratuity. The policy further records that terminal benefits
need not be adjusted towards loss in such cases. In the present case, the
penalty order does not record any finding of fraud, personal enrichment,
criminal breach of trust or lack of integrity. The Bank could not, therefore,
effect a pensionary deprivation by invoking loss in a vague manner.
11. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that pension is protected as
property under Article 300A of the Constitution. It cannot be curtailed by
administrative convenience, post facto approval, or a cryptic order. The
Petitioner had rendered long service. If the Bank wished to deny him full
pension, it had to demonstrate a lawful, reasoned and procedurally fair
exercise of power.
12. Counsel for the Respondent Bank contests the petition. He submits
that the Petitioner was found guilty in a duly conducted disciplinary inquiry.
The penalty of compulsory retirement has not been set aside by any Court or
competent authority. The account in question became NPA and the Bank
suffered financial exposure. In such circumstances, the Petitioner cannot
claim full pension as a matter of right.
13. The counsel submits that Regulation 33 squarely governs the case. An
employee compulsorily retired as a penalty does not have an indefeasible
right to full pension. The Regulation permits the competent authority to
grant pension at any rate between two-third and full pension admissible on
the date of compulsory retirement. The Petitioner, it is urged, has been
granted the statutory minimum of two-third pension and the decision, for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 5 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

that reason, remains within the four corners of the Pension Regulations.
14. On the requirement of consultation, counsel submits that Regulation
33(2) was duly complied with. The matter was placed before the Board of
Directors and the Board was consulted before pension was finally
sanctioned. The documents placed on record, according to the Bank, show
that the case was put up for the Board’s consideration. The mere fact that a
note or draft resolution accompanied the proposal does not, by itself,
establish that the Board acted mechanically or was denied the opportunity to
apply its independent mind. The Board was free to disagree with the
proposal or to take another view; having considered the matter, it accepted
the grant of two-third pension to the Petitioner.
15. Counsel for the Bank further submits that Regulation 48 is relevant
because the Petitioner’s lapses exposed the Bank to financial loss. It is urged
that the Petitioner cannot separate pension from the misconduct which led to
compulsory retirement. The Bank also raises a preliminary objection of res
judicata and submits that the earlier writ petition was disposed of, the Bank
passed a reasoned order in compliance with the direction of this Court, and
the matter should now be treated as closed.
16. On these rival submissions, the following issues arise for
consideration:
(i) Whether the present writ petition is barred by res judicata, or
th
otherwise rendered not maintainable, by reason of the order dated 27
September, 2019 passed in W.P.(C) 9918/2018.
(ii) Whether the reduction of the Petitioner’s pension from full pension to
two-third pension satisfies the requirements of Regulation 33 of the Dena
Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, particularly the requirement
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 6 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

of prior consultation with the Board of Directors.
(iii) Whether Regulation 48 can be invoked to sustain the reduction of
th
pension when neither the penalty order dated 12 February, 2018 nor the
th
impugned order dated 20 December, 2019 purports to proceed under that
provision.
(iv) Whether the Staff Accountability Policy of the erstwhile Dena Bank
had any bearing on the exercise of discretion under Regulation 33,
especially in a case where the penalty imposed was compulsory retirement
and not dismissal or removal.
(v) What relief should follow.
Analysis
17. The preliminary objection based on res judicata must be dealt with at
th
the outset. The order dated 27 September, 2019 in W.P.(C) 9918/2018 did
not adjudicate the legality of the pension reduction. It did not decide whether
the Petitioner was entitled to full pension or two-third pension. It merely
directed the Bank to treat that writ petition as a representation and decide it
th
within eight weeks. The impugned order dated 20 December, 2019 is the
order passed pursuant to that direction. The challenge in the present petition
is to that order. The plea of res judicata is, therefore, misconceived.
18. The next question concerns the proper construction of Regulation 33.
The provision deals with a specific consequence of a specific penalty: the
pension payable to an employee who has been compulsorily retired from
service. Sub-regulation (1) does not prescribe automatic forfeiture of any
fixed portion of pension. It confers a discretion to grant pension within a
defined range, namely, not less than two-third and not more than the full
pension admissible to the employee on the date of compulsory retirement,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 7 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

provided the employee was otherwise entitled to superannuation pension on
that date. Sub-regulation (2) then imposes a procedural condition on the
exercise of that discretion. Where the competent authority proposes to award
pension lower than the full pension admissible under the Regulations, the
Board of Directors must be consulted before such order is passed. The
statutory trigger for consultation is, therefore, any award of pension below
full pension.
19. The words “before such order is passed” are sacrosanct. They mark
the point at which the safeguard must operate. Consultation after the
authority has already made up its mind is not consultation. Nor is approval
of a concluded decision. For a valid consultation, the matter must remain
open when it is placed before the Board. The relevant material must
accompany the proposal. The Board must be invited to consider whether the
facts justify full pension or pension at a reduced rate within the range
permitted by Regulation 33. The final decision must emerge after that
exercise; it cannot be presented to the Board as an accomplished conclusion.
20. This position now stands settled by the Supreme Court in Vijay
1
Kumar v. Central Bank of India , while construing Regulation 33 of the
Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, a provision
materially similar to the one involved here. The Supreme Court held that
sub-regulations (1) and (2) of Regulation 33 must be read together, and that
whenever pension lower than the full pension admissible is awarded to an
employee compulsorily retired as a penalty, prior consultation with the
Board is mandatory. The Court rejected the contention that consultation is
necessary only in a limited class of cases, and treated prior Board
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 8 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

consultation as a substantive safeguard before a pensionary entitlement,
protected as property under Article 300A, is curtailed. Post-decisional
approval cannot cure the absence of prior consultation.
2
21. This Court, in Ashok Kumar Sawhney v. Central Bank of India , had
also examined a reduction of pension by one-third after compulsory
retirement. The Division Bench treated Regulation 33 as requiring strict
adherence where the Bank seeks to pay less than full pension. That decision
rests on a simple but important principle: a pension cut after compulsory
retirement is not a mechanical sequel to the penalty. It is a distinct decision
under the Pension Regulations and must satisfy the procedure prescribed by
those Regulations.
22. Pension has also been treated by the Supreme Court as a valuable
3
right, not a bounty. In State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava ,
the Supreme Court reiterated that pension and gratuity are earned benefits
and partake the character of property. Such a right cannot be taken away
except by authority of law. Therefore, curtailment of such a right must
faithfully follow the statute, regulation or rule which authorises it.
23. In the present case, the impugned order falls short of that threshold. It
reproduces Regulation 33, but does not reveal any real exercise of discretion
under that provision. It does not state that the Board was consulted before
the decision to award less than full pension was taken. It does not explain
why the Petitioner’s case warranted two-third pension rather than full
pension. There is no consideration of his length of service, past record, the
precise nature of the misconduct found proved, the absence or presence of

1
2025 INSC 848
2
2019:DHC:2682-DB
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 9 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

fraud or personal gain, the extent of loss actually attributable to him, or the
proportionality of imposing a further pensionary consequence after the
penalty of compulsory retirement had already been imposed. An order
affecting pension cannot be sustained by a bare recital that “due process”
has been followed. The order must disclose, at least in substance, the process
followed, the authority which applied its mind, the material considered, and
the reasons which led to the denial of full pension.
24. The Bank seeks to defend this by referring to documents suggesting
that the Board was, in fact, consulted; however, if these records are taken
into account, rather the distinction between “consultation” and “approval”
becomes evident. The Bank’s internal records prove the matter was not
th
placed before the Board as an open question. The 14 June, 2018 Board
Agenda explicitly recorded that the Competent Authority, via a note dated
rd
23 March, 2018 “has sanctioned two-third Pension” and concluded the
Petitioner “will be eligible” only for that reduced amount. Furthermore, the
preparation of a pre-recorded “Draft Board Resolution” alongside the
agenda, which already stated that the proposal “was considered and
approved”, also indicates that the outcome was a predetermined conclusion.
nd
The Board on 22 June, 2018, accordingly resolved to grant approval,
without any deliberation, simply stating that “approval be and is hereby
given”. This exercise was, thus, nothing but sanctioning a pre-determined
outcome. The consultation with the Board, as contemplated under the
provision, which requires an open consideration of the matter, is not borne
out from the record.
25. Nor can the Bank meet the challenge by saying that two-third pension

3
(2013) 12 SCC 210
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 10 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

falls within the range permitted by Regulation 33. The existence of power is
one matter; its lawful exercise is another. Regulation 33 does not make a
one-third reduction the ordinary or automatic consequence of compulsory
retirement. It fixes the outer limits of discretion. The floor is two-third
pension and the ceiling is full pension. The authority must still decide, on
relevant material, where the case falls within that range. Such a decision
must be supported by reasons, informed by relevant considerations, and
preceded by consultation with the Board where less than full pension is
proposed.
26. It is at this point that the Bank’s reliance on Regulation 48 must be
examined. Regulation 48 operates in a different field. It is a provision for
withholding, withdrawing, or recovering pension where pecuniary loss
caused to the Bank is sought to be imposed upon a pensioner on account of
grave misconduct, negligence, criminal breach of trust, forgery, or
fraudulent acts during service. It carries its own safeguards, including
consultation with the Board before final orders are passed. The Regulation
also contemplates that departmental proceedings instituted while the
employee was in service may, after retirement, be continued and concluded
as proceedings under the Pension Regulations. That deeming fiction exists
because, after retirement, the Bank cannot impose the usual service penalties
in the same manner as it could during service; the surviving consequences
are pensionary and retiral in character.
27. There may, therefore, be cases where Regulation 48 is properly
invoked after retirement, but this is not such a case. The Petitioner was not
subjected to a Regulation 48 determination. He was visited with the penalty
of compulsory retirement under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations. The
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 11 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

th
order dated 12 February, 2018 does not purport to withhold, withdraw, or
recover pension under Regulation 48. It does not quantify any recoverable
loss. It does not direct recovery from pension. It does not decide that any
part of pension should be adjusted against pecuniary loss. It records
exposure to “likely loss” and, on that basis among others, imposes the
penalty of compulsory retirement. The pensionary consequence was
thereafter required to be worked out under Regulation 33, unless the Bank
separately invoked Regulation 48 in accordance with its procedural
safeguards. It did not do so.
th
28. The impugned order dated 20 December, 2019 also does not proceed
under Regulation 48. It merely recites the disciplinary history, quotes
Regulation 33, and concludes that pension had been sanctioned and
disbursed after due process under the Pension Regulations. There is no
reference to Regulation 48, no quantification of pecuniary loss, and no
direction for recovery from pension or for withholding or withdrawal
thereof. Nor does the order furnish any reasons justifying such withholding,
withdrawal, or recovery as a measure of loss recovery.
th
29. The same is true of the penalty order dated 12 February, 2018. The
order records that the Bank was exposed to “likely loss” and, in exercise of
powers under Regulation 7(3) of the Dena Bank Officer Employees’
Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976, imposes the penalty of
compulsory retirement. The order neither invokes Regulation 48 nor
quantifies any recoverable loss or directs withholding, withdrawal, or
recovery of pension. Mere reference to “likely loss” in a disciplinary penalty
order cannot, by itself, amount to an order under Regulation 48.
30. The Bank’s stand, therefore, lacks statutory clarity. It relies on
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 12 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

Regulation 33 to justify the rate of pension, but invokes Regulation 48 in the
counter affidavit to support the reduction by reference to loss. The two
provisions cannot be used interchangeably. If the Bank intended to recover
or adjust pecuniary loss from pension, it had to take the route of Regulation
48 and satisfy its conditions. If, instead, it intended to award pension lower
than full pension under Regulation 33, it had to exercise that discretion
under Regulation 33, after prior consultation with the Board and for reasons
germane to that provision. The Bank cannot use the observation of “likely
loss” in the disciplinary order as a bridge to reach two-third pension without
satisfying the requirements of either route.
31. The Staff Accountability Policy reinforces this conclusion. Clause
19.1 requires the disciplinary authority, while imposing punishment, to
consider the gravity of misconduct, extenuating circumstances, the track
record of the charged employee, and recovery effected in NPA accounts or
recovery of loss attributable to employee negligence. Clause 20.1 states that
recovery of loss from employees should generally not be ordered unless the
employee has benefited from the act, monetarily or otherwise. Clause 20.1.1
requires a show-cause notice before adjustment from terminal benefits, and
such notice must inform the employee of the quantified loss proposed to be
recovered.
32. Clause 20.1.2 assumes significance in this setting. It contemplates the
very situation where the proved charge, though serious, is not one of fraud
or want of honesty or integrity. In such a case, if the disciplinary authority
forms the view that the employee’s continuance in service is no longer in the
Bank’s interest, the policy permits compulsory retirement instead of the
harsher penalties of dismissal or removal. The reason for this distinction is
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 13 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

stated in the policy itself. Compulsory retirement is chosen so that the
employee is not stripped of all retirement benefits, and may still receive
benefits such as pension, provident fund and gratuity, unlike an employee
dismissed or removed from service. The clause then records that terminal
benefits need not be adjusted towards loss, if any, in such cases. The policy,
therefore, does not override Regulation 33; but it is a relevant indicator of
how the Bank itself understood the consequence of imposing compulsory
retirement in cases not involving fraud, dishonest gain or integrity-related
misconduct.
33. This policy forms part of the Bank’s own framework for deciding the
consequences of misconduct and the treatment of retiral benefits. Where the
Bank has chosen compulsory retirement instead of dismissal or removal, and
where the penalty order does not record fraud, dishonest gain, or want of
integrity, the authority must show why the case nevertheless calls for a
further pensionary consequence. That explanation is missing here.
34. Regulation 33 does not itself impose another punishment. It regulates
the pension payable after the punishment of compulsory retirement has
already been imposed. The penalty is complete once compulsory retirement
is ordered. Any decision thereafter to grant less than full pension is a
separate statutory exercise under Regulation 33. It must therefore carry its
own justification. That justification cannot be supplied merely by pointing
again to the penalty of compulsory retirement. If that were enough, every
order of compulsory retirement would, as a matter of course, result in two-
third pension. Regulation 33 says otherwise. It creates a range, and the
choice within that range must be made on reasons, not by automatic
reduction to the minimum.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 14 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

35. A stricter duty of justification also follows from the nature of pension.
Pension is not grace. It is earned by service and protected by law. The Bank
may reduce it where the governing Regulations permit such reduction. But
the reduction must be the result of a lawful process, not an administrative
afterthought.
36. Tested on these principles, the impugned order cannot stand. It does
not answer the representation but merely repels it. Nor does it disclose a
lawful exercise of discretion under Regulation 33, demonstrate prior
consultation with the Board before awarding less than full pension, or
identify the basis on which full pension was denied to the Petitioner.
Equally, Regulation 48 is neither validly invoked nor is the Petitioner’s
specific contention addressed, namely, that the penalty order did not direct
reduction of pension and that such reduction was effected without a
communicated order.
37. This Court is conscious that the disciplinary penalty of compulsory
retirement has not been set aside in these proceedings. That, however, does
not conclude the present issue. The Petitioner is not being granted relief on
the basis that the disciplinary penalty is erroneous. Relief follows because
the subsequent reduction in pension fails to satisfy the governing
Regulations.
th
38. The impugned order dated 20 December, 2019 is accordingly set
aside. The Bank shall reconsider the Petitioner’s case for pension under
Regulation 33 of the Dena Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995.
Before taking any decision to award pension lower than full pension, the
Bank shall give the Petitioner an opportunity to submit a representation on
the proposed reduction. The matter shall thereafter be placed before the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 15 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16

Board of Directors for prior consultation in the true sense of that expression.
The material placed before the Board shall include the penalty order, the
Petitioner’s service record, the findings in the disciplinary proceedings, the
nature of the misconduct, the absence or presence of fraud or personal gain,
the Staff Accountability Policy, and any material on actual loss or recovery
in the account concerned. The competent authority shall then pass a
reasoned order having regard to the observations made hereinabove.
39. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the
date of receipt of this judgment. If no fresh order is passed within that
period, the Petitioner shall be entitled to full pension from the date on which
the reduction took effect, together with consequential arrears. If a fresh order
is passed awarding less than full pension, it shall be open to the Petitioner to
challenge the same in accordance with law.
40. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.



SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 12, 2026/ab
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 16 of 16

Dgitally Signed
By:AKANSHA SINGH
Signing Date:16.05.2026
15:29:16