COAL INDIA LTD. & ANR. versus NAVIN KUMAR SINGH

[2018] 11 S.C.R. 470

[2018] 11 S.C.R.

COAL INDIA LTD. & ANR.

NAVIN KUMAR SINGH

(Civil Appeal Nos.6491-6492 of 2014)

BSEPTEMBER 25, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR ANDDR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Service Law– Promotion – Inter-company transfer– Pastservice rendered in the parent unit, if to be considered– Respondent,Cjoined Dankuni Coal Complex (DCC), of the appellant company inE-2 Grade on 4[th] August, 1990 – On respondent’s request he wastransferred from DCC to Central Mine Planning and Design InstituteLimited (CMPDIL), subsidiary of the appellant company, in E-2Grade– Respondent joined CMPDIL on 15[th] May, 1991 – Policy ofDappellant-Company that an employee would lose his past seniorityin his existing Grade in the event of an inter-company transfer, ifthe request for transfer was made by the employee himself– Though,respondent acquired requisite eligibility (3 years) for promotion toE-3 Grade in September, 1993, however, he was promoted to theE-3 Grade only vide order dated 12[th ]December, 1994– AppellantEexcluded respondent’s work experience at DCC (i.e. 4[th] August, 1990to 14[th] May, 1991) while considering his eligibility for promotion –Writ petition filed by respondent for grant of notional seniority inthe E-3 Grade w.e.f 12[th] November, 1993– Allowed – Held:Respondent is not claiming seniority over any person alreadyFworking in CMPDIL as there was no senior person working in E-2Grade when the respondent joined– Limited claim of the respondentis that the service rendered by him in the parent unit (DCC) from4[th] August, 1990 in E-2 Grade be reckoned for the purpose ofdetermining his eligibility for promotion to the post of E-3 Gradewhilst working in CMPDIL– High Court justly accepted the claimGof the respondent that for determination of his eligibility forpromotion, his length of service in DCC must be reckoned– Thatcannot be confused with the issue of seniority in CMPDIL as theyare two different factors– Appellant’s policy deals with the latter–There is no express stipulation in the said policy to even remotely

suggest that on seeking inter-company transfer on personalgrounds, the executive concerned would lose even his past servicerendered in the parent unit (DCC) for all purposes– Service renderedby him in DCC ought to be taken into account for all other purposes,other than for determination of his seniority in E-2 Grade in thenew company, CMPDIL– Indeed, his seniority in CMPDIL in E-2Grade will have to be reckoned from the date of his assumption ofcharge on 15[th] May, 1991– However, that can have no bearingwhile determining his eligibility criterion of length of service in E-2Grade for promotion to E-3 Grade– No fault in the direction givenby the High Court to assign notional date of promotion to therespondent in E-3 Grade with effect from 12[th] November, 1993.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The office order pursuant to which therespondent joined Central Mine Planning and Design InstituteLimited (CMPDIL) makes it amply clear that the seniority of therespondent will be reckoned from the date he joins CMPDIL. Itis also seen that when the respondent joined CMPDIL on15[th] May, 1991, there was no senior person working in E-2 Grade.On fair reading of Clause 11 of the policy, there is nothing toindicate that the transferee would lose his past service renderedin the parent company for all purposes. The policy of forfeiture ofseniority in the parent company, however, is limited to theexecutives who seek inter-company transfer on personal grounds.That is to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the executivesalready working in the transferred company. For that reason, theseniority of the executives seeking inter-company transfer onpersonal request is fixed as if he had entered the concerned Gradeon the date of assumption of charge in the transferred company.It has been made explicitly clear that the executive seeking inter-company transfer on personal grounds will lose his past seniorityin the Grade. No more and no less. Indubitably, the respondentis not claiming seniority over any person already working in thenew company (CMPDIL) before the date on which he assumedcharge thereat on 15[th] May, 1991. The limited claim of therespondent however, is that the service rendered by him in theparent unit (DCC) from 4[th] August, 1990 in E-2 Grade be reckonedfor the purpose of determining his eligibility for promotion to the

ABC

Apost of E-3 Grade whilst working in CMPDIL. The High Courtjustly accepted the claim of the respondent that for determinationof his eligibility for promotion, his length of service in DCC mustbe reckoned. That cannot be confused with the issue of seniorityin CMPDIL as they are two different and distinct factors. Thepolicy in the form of clause 11 deals with the latter. There is noBexpress stipulation in the policy – be it clause 11 or any otherofficial document – to even remotely suggest that on seekinginter-company transfer on personal grounds, the executiveconcerned would lose even his past service rendered by him inthe parent unit (DCC) for all purposes. In absence of such aCstipulation, the claim of the respondent could not have beenrejected by the department. [Paras 12-14] [479-E-F ; 480-B-G]

1.2 In the present case, there is no dispute that therespondent had rendered service in E-2 Grade on regular basisin DCC from where he was transferred to CMPDIL, on personal

Dgrounds. The service rendered by him in DCC can be and oughtto be taken into account for all other purposes, other than fordetermination of his seniority in E-2 Grade in the new companyi.e. CMPDIL. Indeed, his seniority in CMPDIL in E-2 Grade willhave to be reckoned from the date of his assumption of chargeon 15[th] May, 1991, but that can have no bearing while determiningEhis eligibility criterion of length of service in E-2 Grade forpromotion to E-3 Grade. For determining the eligibility forpromotion to E-3 Grade, the service rendered by him in DCC inE-2 Grade with effect from 4[th] August, 1990, ought to be reckoned.The view so taken by the High Court commends to this Court.FHence, no fault can be found with the direction given by the HighCourt to assign notional date of promotion to the respondent inE-3 Grade with effect from 12[th] November, 1993.[Para 16] [482-C-E]

1.3 Further, the Office Memorandum dated 5[th] June, 1985G(which clarified the Policy), does not militate against therespondent. It is different matter that it addresses the difficultyexpressed about the denial of opportunity of promotion to theexecutives who opted for inter-company transfer. On fair readingof this Office Memorandum, it is discernible that the department

has clarified the position that if the concerned executive hasalready completed service for specified period including theperiod of service with the old company, would become entitled tobe considered for promotion to the higher Grade. If so, notgranting similar advantage to the executive who opted for inter-company transfer on personal request and who incidentally entersat number one position in the seniority in the new company wouldbe anomalous. Concededly, what is affected in terms of the policyfor inter-company transfer on personal request, is only theseniority position in the new (transferred) company – which wouldcommence from the date of assuming office thereat. By no stretchof imagination, it can affect the length of service in E-2 Grade inthe parent company. The two being distinct factors, neither thepolicy nor the office memorandum would be any impediment forreckoning the period of service rendered by the respondent fromAugust, 1990 in DCC, albeit case of inter-company transfer onpersonal request. [Para 17] [482-F-H; 482-A-B]

Union of India and Ors. v. C. N. Ponnappan (1996) 1SCC 524 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 220 : ScientificAdvisor to Raksha Mantri and Anr. v. V. M. Joseph(1998) 5 SCC 305 : [1998] 1 SCR 177 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

[1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 220relied onPara 9[1998] 1 SCR 177relied onPara 9

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil AppealNos.6491-6492 of 2014.

From the Judgment and Orders dated 20.05.2010 and 11.12.2013of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.546 of 2003 andCivil Review No.68 of 2011 respectively.

Anip Sachthey, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Ms. Ria Sachthey, Advs. forthe Appellants.

Manish Kumar Saran, Adv. for the Respondent.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. These appeals emanate from thejudgment and order dated 20[th] May, 2010 passed by the Division Benchof the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No.546 of 2003 andorder dated 11[th] December, 2013 passed in Civil Review No. 68 of 2011,Bwhereby the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, withminor modifications and declared that the past service of the respondentin the previous company of the appellant could not be forfeited for allpurposes in the event of an inter-company transfer on personal groundsat his request and dismissed the review petition against the said judgmenton the ground of unexplained delay.C

2. The respondent, graduate in Chemical Engineering, wasappointed on 27[th] June, 1990 in E-2 Grade and joined the same on4[th] August, 1990 in Dankuni Coal Complex (for short ‘DCC’), of theappellant company. On request made by the respondent, thePersonnel Manager of the appellant company issued transfer orderDbeing No.C-5A(iii)/51434(Trans)/199 dated 23[rd] April, 1991 transferringthe respondent from DCC to Central Mine Planning and DesignInstitute Limited (for short ‘CMPDIL’), subsidiary of the appellantcompany, in his existing capacity i.e. E-2 Grade. The transfer noticemade it clear that since the transfer had been made at the instance ofEthe respondent himself, his seniority in the E-2 Grade would bereckoned from the date he joined the new organisation, CMPDIL.Accordingly, the respondent joined CMPDIL on 15[th] May, 1991. Theprevailing policy for determination of seniority of executives oninter-company transfers at the time of the joining of the respondent, wasas follows:F

“11. Determination of seniority of executives in E-1 to E-4 gradeson inter-company transfers

This issue has two aspects:

(a) Inter-company transfer effected on administrative grounds:-

(b) Inter-company transfer effected at the request of theexecutive concerned on personal grounds.

According to the existing system, the officers in E-1 to E-4grades belong to the respective company cadres on as-in-where-

is basis. Their career growth upto E-5 grade is within the company.When an executive in these grades moves from one company tothe other, he gets absorbed in the appropriate cadre of thatcompany.

11.1 The Committee recommends that:

(i) When an inter company transfer is effected on administrativegrounds the seniority of the executive shall be fixed in thecompany to which he is transferred taking into account hisdate of entry into the grade.

(ii) When the inter-company transfer is effected on personalgrounds at the request of the executive concerned, his seniorityin the company to which he is transferred, shall be fixed as ifhe entered the grade on the date of his assumption of chargein the new company. In other words, such executive will losehis past seniority in the grade.”

This policy was further clarified by way of an OfficeMemorandum dated 5[th] June, 1985, issued by the General Manager(Personnel) which read as follows:

“Under the present policy of the company, when the inter-companytransfer is effected on personal grounds at the request of theexecutive concerned, his her seniority in the company to whichhe/she is transferred, is fixed as if he/she entered the grade onthe date of his/her assumption of charge in the new company andthe executive loses his/her past seniority in the grade. An issuehas been raised whether in such cases the period of service in agrade put in by the executive in the previous company will alsocount towards eligibility for promotion or not.

2. In this connection, it is clarified that while the name of theofficer transferred on request will be placed at the bottom of theseniority list in his/her grade in the new company when the officerimmediately senior to his/her in the new company becomes eligiblefor promotion, say after one year, the transferee will also becomeeligible for consideration for promotion provided he/she put in theminimum prescribed grade in the previous company. However, ifthe Officer immediately senior to the transferee in the newcompany has put in less than the minimum prescribed period of

Aservice, say six months, in the grade the transferor becomes eligiblefor promotion even though the transferee might have put in morethan the requisite service in the grade prior to his/her transfer.

3. Pending cases may be disposed of on the basis of the aboveclarification. However, past cases will not be re-opened.B This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.”

3. The respondent claims that in September 1993, the appellantcompany held its departmental promotion committee after whichseveral employees were promoted from the E-2 Grade to the E-3 Gradebut the respondent was overlooked for promotion. The reason given toCthe respondent was that his transfer to CMPDIL was done at his ownrequest and his promotion would be considered only after he completed3 (three) years of work experience at CMPDIL, which was therequisite period for promotion from E-2 to E-3.

4. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted to the ‘E-3’ GradeDvide order dated 12[th] December, 1994, which also mentioned that hisseniority would be decided separately, since he had been promotedunder the cluster concept in the centralised cadre. This order wasmodified on 2[nd] January, 1995 to change his designation to ExecutiveEngineer (Chemical).E5. Post-promotion, the respondent challenged the appellant’s

E5. Post-promotion, the respondent challenged the appellant’sdecision to exclude his work experience at DCC (i.e. 4[th] August, 1990 to14[th] May, 1991) while considering his eligibility for promotion, by filing awrit petition being CWJC No.2074/1997 before the High Court ofJharkhand praying for grant of notional seniority to him to the post ofExecutive Engineer (Chemical) in the E-3 Grade with effect fromF12[th] November, 1993. The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition videorder dated 18[th] November, 1998, by merely directing the appellantcompany to consider the representation of the respondent within 3 (three)months from the date of the order.

6. Thereafter, the Chief General Manager (Personnel) of theGappellant company, after considering the respondent’s representation,issued an order on 16[th] February, 1999, rejecting the same inter alia onthe ground that the applicable policy at the time of considering therespondent’s seniority was that an employee would lose his pastseniority in his existing Grade in the event of an inter-company transfer,H

if the request for transfer was made by the employee himself andfurther, as per the office memorandum of 5[th] June, 1985, since therewas no senior executive above the respondent’s Grade, the question ofthe application of the said office memorandum did not arise. The saidorder reads thus:

“Shri Singh was transferred from Dankuni Coal Complex, Dankuni(West Bengal) to CMPDIL, Ranchi vide OrderNo.:C-5A(iii)51434(Trans)/109 dated 23[rd] April 1991 on his ownrequest. In terms of policy followed prior to 1[st] April 1993 (i.e. thedate from which the career growth of all executives wascentralized at CIL level), one had to lose his past seniority in hisexisting grade in the event of his transfer from one company toanother on “request basis”. This policy was followed very strictlywithout any exception.

The Office Memorandum dated 5[th] June 1985 only clarifies withregard to procedure to be followed for consideration of suchtransferred executive, when his immediate senior executive inthe transferee company is considered for promotion. In the caseof Shri Singh since there was no senior executive above him thequestion of application of the above O.M. dated 5[th] June 1985could not arise. Moreover, Shri Singh having not been completedthe requisite period in the transferee company was not eligible forconsideration of his promotion as the period of service renderedin the previous company can not be taken into consideration forthe purpose of eligibility for promotion.

In the premises, I am of the view that there is not merit in therepresentation of Shri Singh (the petitioner) and his request forthe grant of Notional Seniority is rejected.”

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned decision, the respondent fileda fresh writ petition being CWJC No.4177 of 2000 before the HighCourt of Jharkhand, inter alia, seeking to quash the order dated16[th] February, 1999, and praying that he may be granted notionalseniority with effect from 12[th] November, 1993 in the E-3 Grade with allconsequential benefits. This writ petition was allowed by the learnedSingle Judge vide order dated 20[th] June, 2003 who observed thatalthough the respondent may have been at the top in the seniority list ofCMPDIL when he joined in that company, at the time of consideration

Aof promotion to E-3 Grade, his service at DCC could not be overlookedand therefore, denial of promotion to him in E-3 Grade at the time wasincorrect and accordingly, the appellant company was directed to revisethe date of promotion of the respondent.

8. The appellant company challenged the order of the learnedBSingle Judge by way of LPA No.546/2003. Pending the outcome, therespondent was promoted from E-3 to E-4 Grade and then from E-4 toE-5 Grade. On 20[th] May, 2010, the Division Bench disposed of theappellant’s appeal, observing that there was nothing in the policy toindicate that past service in the previous company, from which transferhas been sought, could be forfeited for all purposes, except that on theCstrength of that past service he would not be entitled to supersede theemployees working in the new company in the grade in which he hadjoined.

9. Aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court by way ofspecial leave, asserting that the claim of the respondent is in the teeth ofDthe policy under which he was transferred to CMPDIL at hisrequest and that the Office Memorandum dated 5[th] June, 1985 had noapplication to the fact situation of the present case. Resultantly, the learnedSingle Judge as well as the Division Bench committed manifest error ingranting relief to the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, hasEsupported the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge and theDivision Bench. It is submitted that the High Court noted the distinctionbetween the matter of seniority and that of the length of service. Thepolicy invoked by the appellant merely governs the matter of seniorityand does not affect the length of service as such. Reliance has beenplaced on the decisions of this Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs.FC.N. Ponnappan[1] and Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri and Anr.Vs. V.M. Joseph[2]. It is submitted that the appeals are devoid of meritand ought to be dismissed.

10. We have heard Mr. Anip Sachthey, learned counsel for theappellants and Mr. Manish Kumar Saran, learned counsel for theGrespondent.

11. The indisputable position emerging from the chronology ofevents, is that the respondent was appointed on 27[th] June, 1990 in E-2Grade in DCC and joined that post on 4[th] August, 1990. He requested

1(1996) 1 SCC 524H2(1998) 5 SCC 305

for transfer from DCC to CMPDIL, which is subsidiary of theappellant company. That request was considered favourably as resultof which the respondent joined CMPDIL in existing E-2 Grade,pursuant to Office Order dated 23[rd] April, 1991. The said Office Orderreads thus:

“COAL INDIA LIMITED

“COAL BHAWAN”

10-NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, CALCUTTA-700001

No.C-5A(iii)/51434 (Trans)/199 Dated: 23.04.1991

Shri Navin Kumar Singh, Chemical Engineer in E-2 gradepresently posted at Dankuni Coal Complex is hereby transferredin his existing capacity/grade to Central Mine Planning & DesignInstitute Limited, till further orders.

2. On being released from Dankuni Coal Complex, Shri Singhwill report to Director –in –Charge, CMPDI, Ranchi, for furtherassignment in that company.

3. Since the transfer is being made at his own request Shri Singhwill not be entitled to any transfer TA/Settling in Allowance etc.and his seniority in E-2 grade as Chemical Engineer will bereckoned from the date he joins in CMPDI.

4. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority.

Personnel Manager (EE)”

12. Indeed, the office order makes it amply clear that theseniority of the respondent will be reckoned from the date he joinsCMPDIL. It is also seen that when the respondent joined CMPDIL on15[th] May, 1991, there was no senior person working in E-2 Grade. Thequestion is: whether the policy regarding the determination of inter-seseniority of the executives on inter-company transfers would come inthe way of the respondent for reckoning his eligibility for promotion tothe higher Grade i.e. E-3 Grade, whilst in the new transferred company(CMPDIL)? As the respondent was initially appointed in E-2 Grade on4[th] August, 1990 in DCC on completion of 3 years in September, 1993,

Ahe acquired the requisite eligibility for being considered for promotion tothe next grade i.e. E-3 Grade. However, the department did notconsider the respondent’s case for promotion to E-3 Grade in thedepartmental promotional committee held at the relevant time. Instead,he was considered and promoted to E-3 Grade only in December, 1994.

B13. On fair reading of clause 11 of the policy, there is nothing toindicate that the transferee would lose his past service rendered in theparent company for all purposes. The policy of forfeiture of seniority inthe parent company, however, is limited to the executives who seekinter-company transfer on personal grounds. That is to ensure that noprejudice is caused to the executives already working in the transferredCcompany. For that reason, the seniority of the executives seekinginter-company transfer on personal request is fixed as if he had enteredthe concerned Grade on the date of assumption of charge in thetransferred company. It has been made explicitly clear that theexecutive seeking inter-company transfer on personal grounds will loseDhis past seniority in the Grade. No more and no less.

14. Indubitably, the respondent is not claiming seniority over anyperson already working in the new company (CMPDIL) before the dateon which he assumed charge thereat on 15[th] May, 1991. The limitedclaim of the respondent however, is that the service rendered by him inEthe parent unit (DCC) from 4[th] August, 1990 in E-2 Grade be reckonedfor the purpose of determining his eligibility for promotion to the post ofE-3 Grade whilst working in CMPDIL. The High Court justly acceptedthe claim of the respondent that for determination of his eligibility forpromotion, his length of service in DCC must be reckoned. That cannotbe confused with the issue of seniority in CMPDIL as they are twoFdifferent and distinct factors. The policy in the form of clause 11 dealswith the latter. There is no express stipulation in the policy – be it clause11 or any other official document – to even remotely suggest that onseeking inter-company transfer on personal grounds, the executiveconcerned would lose even his past service rendered by him in theGparent unit (DCC) for all purposes. In absence of such stipulation, theclaim of the respondent could not have been rejected by the department.This proposition is reinforced from the dictum in C.N. Ponnappan(supra), which has been noted with approval in V.M. Joseph (supra).The two-Judge Bench of this Court in C.N. Ponnappan (supra),observed as follows:H“4. The service rendered by an employee at the place from wherehe was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service.It is no different from the service rendered at the place where heis transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for thepurpose of leave and retiral benefits. The fact that as result oftransfer he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the placeof transfer does not wipe out his service at the place from wherehe was transferred. The said service, being regular servicein the grade, has to be taken into account as part of hisexperience for the purpose of eligibility for promotion andit cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was notrendered at the place where he has been transferred. In ouropinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service held at theplace from where the employee has been transferred has to becounted as experience for the purpose of eligibility for promotionat the place where he has been transferred.”

(emphasis supplied)

15. This view has been restated by another two-Judge Bench ofthis Court in V. M. Joseph (supra), in paragraph 6 which reads asfollows:

“6. From the facts set out above, it will be seen that promotionwas denied to the respondent on the post of Senior Storekeeperon the ground that he had completed 3 years of regular service asStorekeeper on 7-6-1980 and, therefore, he could not be promotedearlier than 1980. In coming to this conclusion, the appellantsexcluded the period of service rendered by the respondent in theCentral Ordnance Depot, Pune, as Storekeeper for the periodfrom 27-4-1971 to 6-6-1977. The appellants contended that, sincethe respondent had been transferred on compassionate groundson his own request to the post of Storekeeper at Cochin and wasplaced at the bottom of the seniority list, the period of 3 years ofregular service can be treated to commence only from the dateon which he was transferred to Cochin. This is obviouslyfallacious inasmuch as the respondent had already acquired thestatus of permanent employee at Pune where he had renderedmore than 3 years of service as Storekeeper. Even if anemployee is transferred at his own request, from one place

Ato another on the same post, the period of servicerendered by him at the earlier place where he held apermanent post and had acquired permanent status,cannot be excluded from consideration for determining hiseligibility for promotion, though he may have been placedat the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place.BEligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniorityas they are two different and distinct factors.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. In the present case, there is no dispute that the respondentChad rendered service in E-2 Grade on regular basis in DCC from wherehe was transferred to CMPDIL, on personal grounds. The servicerendered by him in DCC can be and ought to be taken into account forall other purposes, other than for determination of his seniority in E-2Grade in the new company i.e. CMPDIL. Indeed, his seniority inCMPDIL in E-2 Grade will have to be reckoned from the date of hisDassumption of charge on 15[th] May, 1991, but that can have no bearingwhile determining his eligibility criterion of length of service in E-2 Gradefor promotion to E-3 Grade. For determining the eligibility for promotionto E-3 Grade, the service rendered by him in DCC in E-2 Grade witheffect from 4[th] August, 1990, ought to be reckoned. The view so takenEby the High Court commends to us. Hence, no fault can be found withthe direction given by the High Court to assign notional date ofpromotion to the respondent in E-3 Grade with effect from12[th] November, 1993.17. As regards the Office Memorandum dated 5[th] June, 1985,Fthe same does not militate against the respondent. It is different matterthat it addresses the difficulty expressed about the denial of opportunityof promotion to the executives who opted for inter-company transfer.On fair reading of this Office Memorandum, it is discernible that thedepartment has clarified the position that if the concerned executive hasalready completed service for specified period including the period ofGservice with the old company, would become entitled to be consideredfor promotion to the higher Grade. If so, not granting similar advantageto the executive who opted for inter-company transfer on personalrequest and who incidentally enters at number one position in theseniority in the new company would be anomalous. Concededly, what is

affected in terms of the policy for inter-company transfer on personalArequest, is only the seniority position in the new (transferred) company –which would commence from the date of assuming office thereat. Byno stretch of imagination, it can affect the length of service in E-2 Gradein the parent company. The two being distinct factors, neither the policynor the office memorandum would be any impediment for reckoning theBperiod of service rendered by the respondent from August, 1990 in DCC,albeit case of inter-company transfer on personal request. As result,these appeals must fail.

18. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as tocosts.

Divya Pandey

Appeals dismissed.