PRIYANKA KUMARI vs RANCHI UNIVERSITY, RANCHI, THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

2026:JHHC:30952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5934 of 2026
1. Priyanka Kumari, aged about 37 years, daughter of Mr.
Amboj Sharma, resident of House No.11, A.G Colony, Kadru,
P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi;
2. Anuradha Kumari, aged about 34 years, daughter of
Rajendra Paswan, resident of Kanke Road, Hatma, Tangra
Toli, P.O.–Ranchi University, Jawahar Nagar, P.S.-Gonda,
District-Ranchi. ....... Petitioners
Versus
1. Ranchi University, Ranchi, through its Registrar,
having its office at Ranchi University Campus, P.O.-GPO,
P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi ;
2. Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi, having its
office at Ranchi University Campus, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi ;
3. Registrar, Ranchi University having its office at Ranchi
University Campus, P.O.-GPO, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
……. Respondents
4. Principal, Doranda College, a Constituent College of
Ranchi University, having his office at Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-
Doranda, District-Ranchi. .......Performa Respondent
5. State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand having its office at Project
Bhawan, P.O. and P.S. – Dhurwa, Ranchi.
6. Principal Secretary, Department of Higher, and
Technical Education and Skill Department, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.
– Dhurwa, Ranchi. …… Performa Respondents .

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
7.
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv
Mr. Avishek Chandra, Adv
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. A.K.Mehta, Adv
Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv
For the Res. No.4 : Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, Adv
Mr. Piyush Kumar, Adv
……


C.A.V. ON: 06/10/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:14/10/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioners have preferred this petition for direction
1

2026:JHHC:30952
upon the respondent authorities to regularize the services of
the petitioner No.1 on the posts of Assistant librarian or
equivalent post and the Petitioner No. 2 on the post of
Computer Operator and directing the respondent University
to release funds and ensure payment of salary to the
Petitioner No.1 for the period from July, 2015 to April, 2018.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners are
contractual employees working in Doranda College
(constituent college of Ranchi University) for more than a
decade and the college presently has more than fifteen
thousand students enrolled in one or another course.

4. The petitioner No. 1 possesses Degree in B.A. (History)
Honors, from Ranchi University, Ranchi. She also possesses
the qualification of Advance Diploma in Computer
Application and Computer Hardware and Networking course
and is Ph.D. in Library and Information Science acquired
after due permission from the competent authority and the
Respondents are continuing the Petitioner No.1 on contract
basis with a lump-sum remuneration which is much lower
than that of a regularly appointed incumbent on the said
post- Assistant Librarian.
5. As per the Petitioners, Respondent No.4 vide memo
no.9080/A dated 2.7.2015 appointed the Petitioner No.1 on
Grade-III post in Doranda College under Ranchi University
on contractual basis pursuant to which she joined on
8.7.2015.
6. Similarly, vide memo no.8557 dated 26.3.2013, the
Petitioner No.2 was issued letter of appointment to which she
joined on 2.4.2013. Petitioner No.2 is possessing Degree of
B.A. (Economics) Honours, from Ranchi University.
7. Subsequently, vide Memo no.9728A/18 dated
25.1.2018, the Petitioner No.1 while in service, was directed
2

2026:JHHC:30952
to render service as Assistant Librarian (Gr.III) in Doranda
College by the Respondent No.4. She accordingly submitted
her joining on the said post on 2.2.2018.
8. Similarly, the Petitioner No.2 was also directed to join
at the post of Computer Operator vide Memo no. 8611 dated
27.6.2015 pursuant to which she gave her joining on
01.07.2015.
9. It has been averred that remuneration of the petitioners
got enhanced by Rs.1,100/- by order of the Registrar, Ranchi
University contained in memo No. C/759/22 dated
25.1.2022. By another order contained in Memo no.
C/170/2023 dated 29.8.2023 the remuneration of Grade-III
employees was enhanced by Rs.4,000/- by order of the
Registrar, Ranchi University, and arrears thereto were
released by Ranchi University and the same was paid to the
Petitioners.
10. It has been submitted that with regard to the
regularization of the services of the employees working under
Ranchi university Ranchi, a Committee was constituted and
list of employees for regularization/absorption was sought
for from all the colleges under Ranchi University, Ranchi vide
letter contained in memo no.363/2020 dated 18.11.2020
issued under the signature of the Dean Students’ Welfare-
cum-Coordinator of the Committee, Ranchi University,
Ranchi, to which the Principal of the Doranda College, sent
a list of the employees for regularization to the Deputy
Registrar-II, Ranchi University, Ranchi vide reference
no.10341/2020 dated 26.11.2020 wherein the name of the
Petitioner No.1 was at Serial No.34 and name of the Petitioner
No.2 was at Serial No.6.
11. By another Memo no.RU/DSW/400/2021 dated
18.1.2021 again a list was sought from Doranda College,
3

2026:JHHC:30952
Ranchi with regard to the list of the contractual employees
working under it for regularization purpose and the same
was responded by the Respondent No.4 by letter no.10398/A
dated 21.1.2021 sent to the Deputy Registrar–II, Ranchi
University with details of the contractual workers working
under it, re-iterating that the list was already sent by the
college vide letter no.10341/2020 dated 26.11.2020. The
name of the Petitioner No.1 finds place at Serial No.19 and
Petitioner No.2 at Serial No. 17 in the said list.
12. It is an admitted position that petitioners have
been continuously working against the sanctioned post of
non-teaching Grade-III and fulfill all qualification and
eligibility and almost 90% of the sanctioned post of Grade-III
& IV employees are lying vacant since decades. However,
duties thereto being discharged by the contractual employees
like the petitioners.
13. It is next submitted that acknowledging the
aforesaid circumstances, the College sent letters dated
26.11.2020 and 21.01.2021 to Ranchi University
communicating about the position of contractual employees
on sanctioned posts for the purpose of
regularization/absorption.
14. In the meantime, Ranchi University has
regularized the services of Grade IV employees vide
notification contained in Memo no. Esstt/C/588/21 dated
21.9.2021 and services of Grade III employees has been
regularized by Memo no. Esstt/C/587/21 dated 21.9.2021.
This fact has not been denied or disputed by the
Respondents .
15. The petitioners have been making continuous
representations to Ranchi University and the College but no
positive action has been taken till date. As a matter of fact, it
4

2026:JHHC:30952
is reflected from the representation of Petitioner No.1
enclosed to the writ petition that the remuneration for July
2015 to April 2018 has been deferred due to want of funds,
which can be inferred from the endorsement made thereon
by the Respondent No.4.

16. It is evident from the annexure to the writ petition
that the long, uninterrupted service of the Petitioners over
more than a decade has been verified by the Respondent
University through one or other committee constituted for
the purpose and their credentials were also verified by the
University in view of the Notification dated 06.09.2021.

17. Drawing attention of the Court to Annexure 8
which is a letter dated 21.01.2021, it has been contended
that the Petitioner No.1 is serving as Gr.III in Library of
Respondent No.4. Annexure 16 which is part of Rejoinder, is
a letter dated 02.07.2026 by Respondent No. 4 indicating the
Petitioner No.1 working as In-charge Library.

18. So far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, she has
been shown as working in Examination Department as
Computer Operator as per Annexure 8 dated 21.01.2021.

19. Respondents 1 to 3 filed their counter affidavit and
Respondent No.4 filed its counter affidavit separately,
contesting the writ petition. The Respondent No. 4 disputed
the initial letter of appointment of Petitioner No.1 dated
02.07.2015 as forged on the premise that no such record
exists in the college.
Surprisingly, the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in their
counter affidavit have enclosed Letter No.10398/ A dated
21.01.2021 duly endorsed by the present incumbent on the
post of Principal of Doranda College, wherein the name of the
Petitioner is reflected at serial no. 19 and her initial date of
joining is indicated as 02.07.2015. The same document also
5

2026:JHHC:30952
bears the name of Petitioner No. 2 at serial no. 17 indicating
date of joining as 02.04.2013.
20. In view of such conduct of the Respondent No. 4,
this court had directed the Respondent No. 4 to appear in
person to explain the statements made in the counter
affidavit. The Respondent No.4 appeared and submitted that
the statement made in para 10 of his counter affidavit is
because such letter could not be traced by his in the office.
21. It is also to be noted that the Respondents 1 to 3
in their counter affidavit have admitted the documents dated
26.11.2020 and 21.01.2021 in para 10 as internal
communication between the concerned respondents. Thus,
the Respondents appear to be acting mala fide in their
counter affidavits in order to mislead and in their zeal to
contest the prayer of the petitioners.
It is also to be noted that the Respondents have
not made any specific denial as against Petitioner No.2 when
names of both the Petitioners are reflected in common
documents issued by Respondent No.4 to University.
22. It has been indicated by the Petitioners that the
contention of Respondent No. 4 regarding the Appointment
of the Petitioner No.1 in 2015 as forged is based on the
knowledge of the concerned Respondent as per Para 37 of
counter affidavit which claims the statement made in Para
10 to be based on knowledge.
23. This Court strongly deprecates such casual
approach by the Respondent No.4 in asserting important
facts without verifying the records and solely on knowledge;
more so when the documents relied by the petitioner has
been endorsed by Respondent No.4 to the University, and
hopes that Respondent No. 4 shall be careful in future.
6

2026:JHHC:30952
24. This Court finds that the duties of Librarian and
Computer Operator are permanent and integral to the daily
functioning of the Respondent college. Petitioners’ services
have been unblemished, have never been issued with any
warning or adverse remarks. The services rendered by the
petitioners are not only essential but also indistinguishable
from those of regular employees.
25. The Statutes of the Respondent University as also
the UGC regulations dated 18.07.2018 including the
previous Regulations indicate to the fact that the post of
Librarian is a sanctioned post in a college. A copy of Letter
No. 719 dated 25.06.2021 issued by the State and not
disputed by the Respondents, also indicates sanctioned post
of Librarian and Asst. Librarian in the college.

26. The respondents while contesting the case of
Petitioner No.1 have also not denied or disputed the eligibility
of the Petitioner No.1 for the post of Assistant Librarian.

27. So far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, no much
contest or opposition has been made by the Respondents in
their Counter Affidavits. Hence, this Court is of the opinion
that factual matrix of Petitioner No. 2 is not in contest.
28. The best case of the Respondents as per the
submissions advanced is that the Petitioners are not working
against Sanctioned Post, not appointed by competent
authority and thus not entitled for regularization.
However, when faced with Letter No.719 dated
25.06.2021, the Respondents are not able to deny or dispute
the same.
29. It is regrettable that the Petitioners are in
continuous employment for more than 10 years in
Respondent College and the argument is raised that there is
no sanctioned post.
7

2026:JHHC:30952
Sanctioned posts are to be created by a conscious
executive decision, depending on the requirement, necessity
and utility of the work. Sanctioned posts do not fall from
heaven; if the Petitioners are in continuous employment for
more than a decade, this itself implies that the nature of duty
is perennial, continuous and indispensable for the
functioning of the institution.
It is beyond logic that a college having more than
15,000 students enrolled in various courses is not having
any library. And if the College is having a library, it cannot
function without a librarian. Similarly, in the present-day
scenario, all records and office works are maintained and
done by computer. If the same is an indispensable part of
college, it cannot be permitted to contend that there is no
post of Computer operator.
The Respondents’ submissions and contentions
are reflection of exploitative conduct by a State University,
which cannot be accepted by the Court.
Nonetheless, Letter No. 719 dated 25.06.2021
clearly indicates existence of the post of Assistant Librarian
and Librarian. Hence, it is safe to presume that the contest
by the Respondents is infused with mala fide intent.
30. The plight of the Petitioners and the contractual
employees, in government institutions have been perilous,
often faced multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the
foundational purpose of temporary contracts is to address
short-term needs, they have increasingly become a
mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to
employees.
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo
V.s Union of India , reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826
8

2026:JHHC:30952
vide Para 25 has held that these practices manifest in several
ways. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:
……….
(i) Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is
essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are
often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror
those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the
dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to,
despite performing identical tasks.
(ii) Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed
without cause or notice, as seen in the case of the petitioner. This practice
undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their
service.
(iii) Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves
excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or
incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite
their contributions being equally significant.
(iv) Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to
outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing
one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to
bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

(v) Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often
denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health
insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This
lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship,
especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

32. It is imperative for the respondent/Government
Departments to provide fair and stable employment. By
ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions
can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job
security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that
they are meant to embody.
This in turn would also lead to better devotion and
diligence by the employees which cannot be expected from
temporary or contractual or daily rated workers.
33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Ors Vs. State of Assam and
Ors (Civil Appeal Nos. 4145/2025) reported in 2026 SCC
Online SC 909 vide Para 74 dealing with core question
9

2026:JHHC:30952
whether the appellants can be denied the benefit of
regularization solely on the ground that they were not
appointed against sanctioned posts and that the decision in
Umadevi (supra) prohibits such regularization, vide Para 74
has held as under:
“74. This Court in Jaggo (supra), deprecated the tendency of the State
to take mechanical shelter under Umadevi (supra) to deny relief to
employees who had been performing work of a permanent and essential
nature for long years. This Court observed as follows:—
“12. Despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants
performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over
extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades.
Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature;
instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the
responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts.
Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel
for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring
the indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts
lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the
appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning
of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties
necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective
of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to
private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the
inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which
effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further
underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor
occasional.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants' roles
were not only essential but also indistinguishable from those
of regular employees. Their sustained contributions over
extended periods, coupled with absence of any adverse record,
warrant equitable treatment and regularization of their
services. Denial of this benefit, followed by their arbitrary
termination, amounts to manifest injustice and must be rectified.
20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra)
does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long
years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of
the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought
to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that
circumvent constitutional requirements. However, where
appointments were not illegal but possibly “irregular,” and
where employees had served continuously against the
backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period,
the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes
paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service
performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can,
over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or
10

2026:JHHC:30952
temporary into a scenario demanding fair regularization . In a
recent judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, it was
held that held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny
regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was
termed “temporary” but has performed the same duties as performed
by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of
the regular employee.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts,
as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue
that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the
private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in
precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of
benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards.
Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of
fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such
exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities
engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors
the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.”

34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Para 75 to 78 in
Sukhendu Bhattarjee (Supra) has held as under:
“ 75. Recently, this Court in Bhola Nath (supra) while relying on the
judgment of Jaggo (supra), Shripal (supra), and Dharam Singh
(supra) observed as follows:—
“13.6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated the practice
adopted by States of engaging employees under the nominal labels
of “part-time”, “contractual” or “temporary” in perpetuity and thereby
exploiting them by not regularizing their positions. In Jaggo v. Union
of India, this Court underscored that government departments
must lead by example in ensuring fair and stable employment,
and evolved the test of examining whether the duties
performed by such temporary employees are integral to the
day-to-day functioning of the organization.
13.7 In Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, and Vinod Kumar v. Union of India,
this Court cautioned against a mechanical and blind reliance on
Umadevi (supra) to deny regularization to temporary employees in
the absence of statutory rules. It was held that Umadevi (supra)
cannot be employed as a shield to legitimise exploitative
engagements continued for years without undertaking
regular recruitment . The Court further clarified that Umadevi itself
draws a distinction between appointments that are “illegal” and
those that are merely “irregular”, the latter being amenable to
regularization upon fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
13.8. In Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., this Court strongly deprecated
the culture of “ad-hocism” adopted by States in their capacity as
employers. The Court criticised the practice of outsourcing or
informalizing recruitment as a means to evade regular
employment obligations, observing that such measures
11

2026:JHHC:30952
perpetuate precarious working conditions while
circumventing fair and lawful engagement practices.
13.9. The State must remain conscious that part-time
employees, such as the appellants, constitute an integral part
of the edifice upon which the machinery of the State continues
to function. They are not merely ancillary to the system, but
form essential components thereof. The equality mandate of
our Constitution, therefore, requires that their service be
reciprocated in a manner free from arbitrariness, ensuring
that decisions of the State affecting the careers and livelihood
of such part-time and contractual employees are guided by
fairness and reason .”
(Emphasis supplied)
76. What emerges from the principles enunciated in the aforesaid
decisions is that the State cannot rely upon the mere form of
engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to employees who
have served it for long years. The consistent thread running through
these judgments is that Umadevi (supra) cannot be invoked as a
blanket barrier to justify prolonged and continued engagements of a
temporary or ad hoc nature, especially where the employees have
been discharging essential and recurring functions of the State. The
Court has repeatedly emphasised that the distinction between
“illegal” and “irregular” appointments must be kept in view, that long
and continuous service is a relevant consideration, and that the
State, as a model employer, is under a constitutional obligation to act
with fairness, consistency and reasonableness. The practice of
retaining employees for decades under deceptively titled
designations, while simultaneously extracting regular work integral
to the administration, has been disapproved consistently.
77. Applying these principles to the present case, it is evident that
engaging workers on muster rolls was a consistently employed policy
of the State which continued for prolonged period of time. The
appellants were not engaged for sporadic or seasonal purposes but
were taken on muster rolls and have rendered continuous service for
decades in departments performing regular governmental functions.
The State itself acknowledged the magnitude of the issue and framed
a Cabinet policy to regularize similarly situated workers, acting upon
it in respect of nearly 30,000 employees. In such circumstances, to
deny consideration to the fraction of remaining eligible workers
including the appellants, by taking shelter under a rigid reading of
Umadevi (supra) would defeat the very principles of fairness and
non-arbitrariness that this Court has consistently upheld.
78. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are unable to accept the contention
of the State that the appellants cannot be granted regularization on
the ground that they were not initially appointed against duly
sanctioned posts. The State, having engaged the appellants prior to
st
1 April, 1993, utilised their services continuously for decades, and
having itself framed and implemented a Cabinet policy regularizing
nearly 30,000 similarly situated workers, cannot now exclude the
appellants by taking shelter behind a rigid or technical reading of
Umadevi (supra). In absence of any cogent distinction or reasoned
decision justifying such exclusion, the action of the State is
manifestly arbitrary. It is inconsistent with its obligation to function
as a model employer and does not withstand scrutiny under Article
14 of the Constitution.”

12

2026:JHHC:30952
35. The Petitioners have drawn the attention of this
Court to orders passed by this Court in similar matters – WPS
4909/2022 [Sonu Prasad V. State of Jharkhand]; WPS
543/2020 [Sangeeta Toppo V. State of Jharkhand]; WPS
722/2026 [Gulam Khan V. State of Jharkhand]; WPS
315/2025 [Dharo Oraon V. State of Jharkhand] and WPS
2825/2021 [Sunil kumar V. State of Jharkhand] , wherein this
Court relying upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court has passed orders for regularization in favour of the
Petitioners who have been working for long on contract basis.
36. The Petitioners have further relied on the judgment
of Patna High Court in CWJC No. 6125/2015 in Mahdwi Jha
& Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (para 20 to 28) and contended
that under similar circumstances, the Patna High Court has
issued direction for regularization with all consequential
monetary and other benefits to the Petitioners therein in the
light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
referred to herein above.
37. Relying on the judgment by Orissa High Court in
the case of Santosh Kumar Patra V. State of Orissa & Ors. [WPC
22932/2019], it was contended by the respondent therein that
the employees were engaged under self-financing courses, the
principal of the concerned college had appointed the
petitioners and claim for regularization was rejected by the
respondents was quashed by the Orissa High Court, relying on
the order/judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
38. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, orders
of this Court and the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners are being
exploited by continuing on contract basis when the duties
discharged by them are indispensable and perennial in nature.
13

2026:JHHC:30952
The action of the Respondent university in
regularizing Class IV and Class III employees vide notification
contained in Memo no. Esstt/C/588/21 dated 21.9.2021 and
Memo no. Esstt/C/587/21 dated 21.9.2021, who are similarly
placed as the Petitioners amounts to hostile discrimination.
39. It is therefore in the interest of justice that the
Petitioners be meted out equal treatment and hence the
Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to regularize the Petitioner no.
1 on the post of Assistant Librarian and the Petitioner No. 2
on the post of Computer Operator in Doranda College, Ranchi
(Respondent No.4) within a period of 6 weeks from today with
all consequential benefits.
The Respondents 1 to 4 are also directed to release
the remuneration of the Petitioner No. 1 for the period July
2015 to April 2018 after adjusting the payment if any made,
within the same time frame i.e., four weeks from today.
40. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed
in aforesaid terms. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed
of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:14 /10/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R/

Uploaded on
16.10.2026



14