S BABU RAO vs DEFENCE

OA/621/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH

OA/020/0621/2022

th
HYDERABAD, this the 08 day of October, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member
Hon’ble Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, Administrative Member

1) S Babu Rao, Sio Late S Madhusudana Rao, Aged about
58 yrs, Occ: CTO(D), Employee No 3007MSQAA Olo
DRDL, Kanchanbag, Hyderabad.

2). S A Acharyulu, S/e Late S Chittlabbal, Aged 50 yra
Oce: CTO (D). EDP No 1020, CNAI(E). NAD (P),
Visakhapatnam, 530009,

(3) Y Trimurtulu, S/o Late Rama Murthy, Age 59 yrs, 3.
Olo CNAI(E), Occ: CTO (D), EDP No 0123, 0/0 NAD
(Post) Visakhaptanm-530009,

4). Raisen Hansdah, S/o Late Madhu Hansdah. Age 52
yrs, Occ: CTO (D), EDP No Olo CNAI(E), NAD (Post)
Visakhaptanm-530009

5). B Sastry Naidu, S/o Late Appala Naidu, Age 59 yrs,
Occ: CDM, EDP No 0432 O/ NAD (Visakhapatnam),
NAD (Post) Visakhaptanm-530009.

6). M N Murali Krishna, S/o Late MS Markandeyulu, Age
56 yrs, Occ: CDM, EDP No 0124 O/o CNAI(E) NAD
(Post) Visakhaptanm-530009.

7). S Vijayalakshmi, W/o S Babu Rao, Age 58 yrs, Occ:
CDM, O/o NAI (DP) Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad,

8). M Kondaiah, S/o Late Kondaiah, Age 54 yrs, Occ:
CTO(D), O/% CAN (DP), C/o DRDL, Kanchan Bagh,
Hyderabad.500058

9). K Bhaskara Rao, S/o Late K Venkata Rao, Age 51 yrs,
Occ: Sr. Chief Draftsman, EDP No 0126, O/o CNAI(E),
NAD (P), Visakhapatnam,




Page 1 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022
10). V Balakrishna Naidu, S/o Late Lakshminaidu, Age
50 yrs, Occ: CDM, EDP No 0444 Olo NAD Depot,
NAD,(P), Visakhaptnam,

… Applicants.

(By Advocate: Mr. K Siva Reddy, Advocate)
Vs.

1. The Union of India Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of
Defence, South Block, New Delhi, 110011.

2. The Chief of Naval Staff, Integrated Head quarter,
Ministry of Defence (Navy), Integrated Headquarters, Sena
Bhavan, New Delhi. 110011

3. The Chief of Personal (For Directorate of Civilian
Personnel Services) Room No 101, IHQ, Ministry of
Defence, (Navy)Talkatora Stadium Annex Building, New
Delhi, 110001

4. The Director General of Naval Armament Inspection,
(For DGNAI), Integrated Headquarters, Ministry of
Defence, (Navy) West Block-V, Wing 1 & 5, FF,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi, 110066.

5. Then Flag-officer-Commanding-in-chief, For SO(CP),
Headquarter, Eastern Naval Command, Naval base,
Visakhapatnam.

6. The Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspection(East),
Controller of Naval armament Inspection NAD post,
Visakhaptanm, 500009,

7. The Controller.

Controllerate of Naval Armament (DP) Naval Armament
Inspection, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad

8. The Chief General Manager, Naval Armament Depot
NAD (Post) Visakhaptanm-530009.

9. The Principal Director
Missile 'System Quality Assurance Agency (MSQAA). C/o
Ministry of Defence at Quality Centre Building C/o DRDL.
Kanchanbagh, - PO Hyderabad - 500058




Page 2 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022
10. The PCDA (R&D),
Opp ASL Gate, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad 500058.
... Respondents.

(By Advocate: Mrs. Megha Rani Agrawal, Sr. PC for CG)
Page 3 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:
“… Therefore it is prayed to this Hon'ble

Tribunal in the interest of justice may be pleased to (i) Declare
the inaction of the respondents in not extending the benefit of
common order of Kerela High court dated 20-7-2017 to non-
petitioner in all trades/posts inspite of calling the financial
implication from applicants on 27-1-2019 on lapse of 2 years
also, which is highly illegal and arbitrary and violation of
principle of natural justice, hence direct the 3rd respondent to
extend the benefit of the pay scale Rs 5,500-9000 instead of
5000-8000 on par with senior chargeman from 1-1-1996 and
consequently direct the respondents to release the arrears
amounts after fixation of pay scale and pass such other order
and further orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of
justice”

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant draws attention to the order dated 27.02.2020,
wherein it has, inter alia, been stated as under:

“The Controller
(For Admin Officer)
Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspection (East)
NAD (Post), Visakhapatnam – 530 009
RE-FIXATION OF PAY IN PAY SCALE 5500-9000 WEF 01.01.1996
INSTEAD OF 5000-150-8000
1. Refer to:
(i) IHQ-MoD(Navy)/DCPS letter No CPT(L)/8000/OP (CAT)/271/2016 &
213/2017 dt 27 Jun 19 (not addressed to all).
(ii) CNAI(East) letter No VI/2006 (i) dt 31 Jan 20 (copy enclosed).
(iii) CNAI(East) letter No VI/2006 dt 31 Jan 20 (copy enclosed).
2. The issue of extending the benefits of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala judgment to
the similarly placed employees (non-petitioners) was taken up on file with IHQ
MoD(Navy)/DCPS/DCP. Accordingly, IHQ-MoD(Navy)/DCPS vide letter ibid
has sought authenticated information from Command Headquarters for similarly
Page 4 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

placed employees (non-petitioners) towards progressing consolidated case with
MoD. It is evident that matter is being pursued with concerned authorities for
early resolution and outcome of the same will be intimated on receipt of
information from professional Dte viz IHQ-MoD(N)/DCPS/DCP.
3. The individuals may be informed accordingly.
(TP Singh)
Cdr
Cdr(NAI) – HR
Encl: As above.
Copy to:
The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief
(For CCPO)
Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam – 14”

3. It has been brought to our notice that, at the time of filing of the present O.A.,
the matter was still pending consideration before the IHQ-MoD(N)/DCPS/DCP and
no further action had been taken by the respondents in the matter.

4. Counsel for the applicant further draws attention to page 40 of the paper book,
wherein, in similar circumstances, the benefit of the common order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala was extended vide communication dated 18.08.2022,
which reads as under:
“MOST IMMEDIATE
COURT CASE
Tele/Fax: 011-21410546
Directorate of Civilian Personnel Services
Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Navy)
Room No 101, Talkatora Stadium Annexe
New Delhi – 110001
18 Aug 2022
CPT(L)/8000/OP(CAT) 271/2016
and OP(CAT) 213/2017
The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief
(For CCPO)
HQ Eastern Naval Command
Visakhapatnam-530014
Page 5 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief
(For CGPO)
HQ Southern Naval Command
Kochi-682004
EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF COMMON ORDER OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA DATED 20 JUL 2017 IN OP(CAT) NO 271/2016 FILED BY SHRI M E
UTHAMA KURUP AND OP(CAT) NO 213/2017 FILED BY SHRI K BHASKARAN &
OTHERS OF NSRY KOCHI TO ALL SIMILARLY PLACED NON-PETITIONERS
IN ALL TRADES/POSTS
1. This is in reference to the matter captioned above.
2. The cases mentioned in the list below have been approved by the Competent
Authority in principal for the implementation. However, financial implication is
needed in order to sanction the charge expenditure. The list of the cases is as
follows:-
Sl.
No.
Case No. Applicant Details CAT Bench Date of
Order
1. CP No. 70/2020 in OA No.
1259/2018
Shri K Mallikarjuna Rao &
39 Others
CAT (Hyd) 24 Oct
2019
2. CP No. 68/2020 in OA No.
09/2019
Shri Wilson John & 39
Others
CAT (Hyd) 07 Nov
2019
3. CP No. 109/2021 in OA
No. 450/2019
Shri S Pratap Yadav CAT (Hyd) 07 Nov
2019
4. CP No. 69/2020 in OA No.
1064/2019
Shri Pili Dasu CAT (Hyd) 20 Jan
2020
5. CP No. 52/2020 in OA No.
105/2020
Shri M Kondalaiah & 64
Ors
CAT (Hyd) 21 Jan
2020
6. CP No. 88/2021 in OA No.
914/2020
Shri R Raja Rao & 18
Others
CAT (Hyd) 31 Dec
2020
7. CP No. 27/2021 in OA No.
478/2015
Shri NV Rama Rao & 24
Ors
CAT (Hyd) 30 Oct
2019
8. CP No. 18/2022 in OA No.
735/2015
Shri SM Mouali CAT (Hyd) 30 Mar
2021
9. CP No. 9/2022 in OA No.
328/2021
Shri Ganta Pandaiah & 46
Others
CAT (Hyd) 22 Sep
2021
10. CP No. 2/2022 in OA No.
703/2020
Shri M Narayana CAT (Hyd) 05 Nov
2020
11. CP No. 13/2022 in OA No.
944/2020
Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma
& 5 Ors
CAT (PB), New
Delhi
17 Jun 21
12. CP No. 14/2022 in OA No.
945/2022
Shri Chandra Shekhar & 5
Ors
CAT (PB), New
Delhi
17 Jun 21
3. The Command HQrs are requested to forward the respective financial implication
in respect of the above mentioned cases at the earliest.
4. It is also requested to apprise the Hon’ble Tribunals to dispose of the contempt
proceedings in the related cases in the light of the approval of the Competent
Authority for implementation of the Orders. The Hon’ble Tribunals may also be
requested to grant time of 08 weeks to grant the financial benefits to the
applicants.
5.
Page 6 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

5. The IHQ may please be kept apprised of the progress in the matter and directions
of the Hon’ble Tribunals, if any.
(Vijay Shankar Pal)
Director, DCPS”


5. He further draws attention to the fact that, on 02.07.2025, an order came to be
passed in O.A. No. 257 of 2023, wherein the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal, taking
into consideration the relevant factors and the implementation of the order passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, passed the following order:
“12. Regarding the relief claimed in para 8(d) that the respondents should be
directed togrant all similarly placed persons across the Indian Navy is in the
nature of PIL which cannot be entertained by this Tribunal.

13. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to grant the pay scale of
Rs.5500-9000 to the applicants of this OA within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

14. In the result, the Original Application is partly allowed, Pending MAs, if any,
stand closed. No costs.”


6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon
the averments contained in the reply statement, has vehemently contended as under:
“d. That however, post of Chargeman in AWS wing with pay scale of Rs.1400-
2300 was not existing prior to 1st January 1996 and V CPC has recommended
pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 on the misconception that the grade of
Chargeman (AWS) in the WS) in the pre-revisedpay scale of Rs.1400-2300 also
existed along with that of Senior Chargeman (AWS). Further, granting of
different pay scales to Senior Chargeman of Factory and AWS wings i.e. Rs.
5000-150-8000/- and Rs.5500-175-9000/-respectively, led to an anomaly among
the staff. Thereforee, the said anomaly was placed before anomaly committee
which has identified the anomaly and confirmed that granting the pay scale of
Rs.5500-175-9000 to erstwhile Senior Chargeman of Ammunition wing of NASO
was due to misconception of factual position. The extract of decision taken by
Anomaly Committee is as under

"It was also noted that in para 63.302, the Vth CPC have recommended
Page 7 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

introduction of a four grade structure for the Technical Supervisor staff in the
designations of Chargeman-Gradell Chargeman Gde-I" Assistant Foreman and
Foreman in all Naval Establishments. The Commission has also recommended
change of the designations existing as on 01-01-96 to fall in line with the
aforesaid recommendations for the four grade structure. It was noted that Naval
Ammunition workshop under NASO Senior Chargeman (Rs.1400-2300 Pre-
revised) has been recommended a higher scale of Rs.1640-2900 with resignation
as Chargeman Gde-I as the second ladder in the proposed four grade structure
starting from Chargeman Gde-III. It was confirmed by NHQ representatives that
the post of Chargeman (Rs.1400-2300) which has been re-designated as
Chargeman Grade-II in the higher scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (Pre-revised) does not
actually exist in Ammunition workshop under NASO. The Pay commission
recommendations to this regard are therefore on misconception of the factual
position. It was felt in the committee that this mistake should be rectified. It was
decided that the matter will be examined in life and the official side may take
appropriate action."

However, this theory of 'Mistaken Identity of the Anomaly Committee has not
been accepted by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under WP 30853 of
2003 (s) and scale of pay of SCM of AWS wing was restored to Rs.5500-175-
9000. As such it is the conclusive position of the Government that the SCM of
AWS only need to continue the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 as recommended

Further it is humbly stated that Sr. Chargeman (AWS) supervise activities in
Ammunition Workshops where majority explosives are handled whereas Sr.
Chargeman (Factory) supervise activities of guided weapons workshops where
majority non-explosive components of weapons are handled. Hence nature of
duties of supervisory staff of AWS and Factory wing are different. Therefore, the
contention of the applicant equal pay for equal work' is liable to be rejected.

e. That subsequently, Shri K. Bhaskaran & Shri ME Uthama Kurup (Chargeman
of NSRY of Indian Navy who are equivalent to Chargeman (Factory of NA
organization) also filed OP(CAT) 213/2017 and 271/2016 respectively before
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for Upgradation of their pay scale for Rs.5000-
150-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000 inline with Chargeman (AWS) of NA
Organisation. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20th July 2017 decided the
matter in favour of the applicants.

f. That thereafter, the Govt. orders for implementation of above Court order in
respect of applicants only, were issued by MoD vide letter dated 16th Oct 18
whereby the sanction of Hon'ble President to implement the common order of
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 20-07-2017 in OP(CAT) 271/2016 and
Page 8 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

OP(CAT) 213/2017 in respect of applicant's therein only has been conveyed and
the pay scale of Applicant's therein (erstwhile Senior Chargeman) of Navel Ship
Repair Yard has been revised from 5000-8000 to 5500-9000.

g. That subsequently, a consolidated proposal for extension of similar benefit to
the non-petitioners such as SCM of Factory wing of NA organization including
the applicant Shri R K Choudhary, who are similarly placed as to the applicants
of the OP(CAT) 271/2016 and OP(CAT) 213/2017 was taken up with Ministry of
Finance through MoD. Ministry of Finance has not agreed for the same.
Therefore without approval of Ministry of Finance, the Pay scale of the 5500-
175-9000 has not been granted to the applicant.”


7. It has been further averred as under:
“6. It is submitted that the pay fixation was done on 13-2-2018 and the
application was filed on 13-2-2020 after 2 years and hence the same is bared by
limitation and liable to be dismiss-in-limine.”

8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the applicants herein were working in the pay scale of
₹5000–8000/-. The applicants were posted in the cadre of Chargeman/Senior
Chargeman in the Naval Armament Inspection Organisation (NAIO) and formed part
of the Technical Supervisory Staff. On implementation of the V CPC, the post of
Senior Chargeman in NAIO was redesignated as Chargeman-II and placed in the pay
scale of ₹5000–8000/-. This position is not in dispute.

10. It is also not in dispute that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in
O.P.(CAT) Nos. 213 of 2017 and 271 of 2016 , vide judgment dated 20.07.2017, dealt
with the matter in detail. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble High Court
of Kerala are extracted hereinbelow:
“7. From the above, it is clear that the issue was correctly dealt with by the
Directorate then, with proper application of mind and they arrived at a finding
that there was an anomaly which required to be rectified. There is also a finding
to the effect that the Charge men in the organizations NASO and NSRY were
similarly situated and that their counterparts in NASO and that the parity in the
scale of pay was in force for several decades, which came to be disturbed without
Page 9 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

any rationale. This made the Directorate to arrive at a finding that the Charge
men of NASO and the Naval Dock Yard might also be granted the upgraded scale
of pay, on par with the Charge men of NASO with effect from 01.01.1995. The
Ministry examined the said proposal and it was accordingly, that IHQ-MoD
(Navy) was requested by a communication dated 16.01.2014 to intimate the
“financial implication” involved, as specifically stated in Ext.P6. The particulars
in this regard were required by all the four different addressees shown in
Annexure A11 (Heads of the Western Naval Command, Eastern Naval Command,
Southern Naval Command and also the Commandant in Chief of the Andaman
Nicobar Island, Port Blair), to forward the relevant particulars and also the
financial implications along with the calculation sheet, to reach the destination by
29.01.2014 for necessary action. The question is whether this direction was given
effect to, in the further course and proceedings.
8. On going through the contents of Annexure A10 declining the relief sought for,
it is seen that there is absolutely no mention by the Directorate, to their own
findings and proceedings as covered by Annexure A11. The fact remains that
there was no doubt in the mind of the Directorate as to the similarity of the posts,
the pay parity which was being enjoyed by the persons in the different
organizations, existence of anomaly and the necessity to have it rectified at the
earliest opportunity. The only point remained was with regard to the “financial
implication” and it was for moulding the relief, that the particulars in this regard
were called for. As such, the only exercise which remained to be completed was to
have the matter finalized with reference to the finding already arrived at by the
Directorate in Annexure A11 and based on the financial implications furnished by
the authorities concerned. [It is seen that such particulars were furnished by the
Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Kochi, as per Annexure A12]. This exercise
obviously has not been done by the Directorate. The net result is that, the finding
in Annexure A11 arrived at by the Directorate has been simply given a “go-by”
and a fresh order has been passed in the form of Annexure A10, totally declining
the relief sought for.
9. The stand now taken before this Court from the part of the respondents is
that, a different “work study” was conducted and it was, accordingly, that
different pay scales were provided. We find it difficult to accept the said
proposition, in view of the finding on fact arrived at by the Directorate as
disclosed from Annexure A11. This being the position, it is not open for the
respondents to take a “U-turn” and to say something else now, contrary to the
contents of Annexure A11.
10. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that, though the matter was caused to be examined by the 6th CPC and
also the 7th CPC, they did not go into these aspects, particularly with reference to
the contents of Annexure A11 and hence the disparity continues. It is also stated
that, pursuant to the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC,
Page 10 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

persons who belong to different classes/categories have been brought to a
common pool, with a common pay scale; but by virtue of the disparity already
resulted, because of the wrong exercise done by the respondents, the gap between
the petitioners (in NSRY) and their counterparts (in NASO) has been widened like
anything, which requires immediate rectification at the hands of this Court.
11. After hearing both the sides, we find that Ext.P3 order passed by the
Tribunal declining interference with Annexure A10 is not correct or sustainable
and they are liable to be interfered with. We do so. We find it appropriate to
direct the Directorate to reconsider the matter in the light of their own findings as
given in Annexure A11 and to pass appropriate orders with reference to the
financial implications forwarded to them by the Flag Officer Commanding-in-
Chief, Kochi, as per Annexure A12 and pass appropriate orders for rectification
of the anomaly at the earliest, at any rate within three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both the Original Petitions are allowed to the
said extent. No costs.”

11. The above said order was implemented.
12. It is also to be noted that the ground urged by the respondents that the Ministry
of Finance has not acceded to the request cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny the
relief sought by the applicants, particularly when the matter has remained pending
consideration for a considerable period of time.
13. There is no distinction made out, insofar as the present applicants are
concerned, vis-à-vis the cases dealt with in the earlier round of litigation, including
O.A. No. 1259 of 2018 before this Tribunal, O.A. No. 257 of 2023, as well as the
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala referred to hereinabove. The mere fact
that the Ministry of Finance has not acceded to the request cannot, at this stage, be
accepted as a valid ground to deny the relief claimed by the applicants, particularly
when the issue has already been considered in the aforesaid proceedings.
Even the plea of limitation, being essentially a technical plea, cannot be permitted to
defeat the substantive rights claimed by the applicants, particularly when such rights
have accrued to similarly situated employees pursuant to the aforesaid decisions. The
applicants cannot be deprived of the benefit of the relief merely on the basis of such a
technical objection.
Page 11 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

14. It is also noted that in Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. C.
Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
(2015) 1 SCC 347 has held that service jurisprudence, which has evolved by this
Court from time to time, postulates that all persons similarly situated should be
treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court would not mean
that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. Justice demands that a
person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees.
The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the
Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that
benefit; not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service
matters more emphatically, as service jurisprudence, which has evolved by this Court
from time to time, postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated
equally


15. Since the respondents have failed to make out any distinction, much less a
valid distinction, between the case of the applicants herein and the cases referred to
supra, we have no alternative but to allow the present O.A. in the light of the recent
decision rendered in O.A. No. 257 of 2023 . Accordingly, the applicants shall be
entitled to the relief in terms of paragraph 12 of the said judgment, which shall be
extended to them within the stipulated period prescribed therein.
16. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications,
if any, are disposed of. No order as to costs.






(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Page 12 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R

OA/621/2022

/pb/

O.A. is disposed of on : 08.10.2026
Order dictated on : 08.10.2026






Page 13 of 13

7e1fedf2c
0558abb0 fd006c67
78a2d876
PRACHI
BHASKA
R