3899 GI/2023

(2079)

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी.एल. (एन) 04/0007/2003—05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

xxxGIDHxxx

xxxGIDExxx

प्राजिकार से प्रकाजित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप् ताजिक

WEEKLY

सं. 26]

नई दिल् ली, िून 25—िुलाई 1, 2023, िजनवार/आषाढ़ 4—आषाढ़ 10, 1945

No. 26]

NEW DELHI, JUNE 25—JULY 1, 2023, SATURDAY/ASHADHA 4—ASHADHA 10, 1945

इस भाग में जभन् न पृष् ठ संख् या िी िाती िै जिससे दक यि पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा िा सके

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II—खण् ड 3—उप-खण् ड (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों (रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर) द्वारा िारी दकए गए सांजवजिक आिेि और अजिसूचनाएं

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक जिकायत तथा पेंिन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रजिक्षण जवभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 24 िून, 2022

का.आ. 982.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए िठरयाणा राज् य सरकार, गृि जवभाग के

आिेि सं. 20/2/2022-3एचिीआई, दिनांक 17.05.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, जसजवल लाइन्स थाना,

गुरुग्राम, िठरयाणा में भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, 201 और

120बी तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) की िाराएँ 7, 8 एवं 13 के अंतगित दिनांक

11.02.2017 को ििि एफआईआर सं. 103 से िुड़े अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध

दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-15072023-247315

CG-DL-W-15072023-247315

सी.जी.-डी.एल.-सा.-15072023-247315

CG-DL-W-15072023-247315

2080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त िठरयाणा राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/45/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel And Training)

New Delhi, the 24th June, 2022

S.O. 982.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Haryana issued vide Notification No. 20/2/2022-3HGI dated 17.05.2022, Home Department, hereby

extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of

Haryana for investigation into the offence(s) relating to FIR No. 103 dated 11.02.2017, registered under sections 420,

466, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and sections 7, 8 and 13 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) at Police Station, Civil Lines, Gurugram, Haryana and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/45/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022

का.आ. 983.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् य सरकार, गृि जवभाग,

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 69/पोल-2, दिनांक 28 िनवरी, 2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री

सुिांिु श्रीवास्ट्तव, उप क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, वेस्ट्टनि कोलफील््स जलजमटेड, मकरिोकरा साईट-III, उमरेि, नागपुर के जवरुद्ध

दिनांक 25.01.2022 को श्री स्ट्वजिल अरुण पांचभाई, माजलक, मेससि साई आिीवाि सर्विसेि, प्लॉट सं. 1057, आिीवाि

नगर, नागपुर द्वारा भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988

(वषि 2018 में यथासंिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित ििि कराई गई जिकायत, जिसमें श्री अजमत जसन्िा, कमिचारी, मेससि

सैजनक माइननंग एवं एलाइड सर्विसेि जलजमटेड मकरिोकरा साईट-III, उमरेि, नागपुर की संजलप्तता भी पाई गई िै,

जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 28.01.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी0282022ए0002 ििि की गई िै, से उत्पन्न

अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र

एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली

जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 28.01.2022 से)

समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/33/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022

S.O. 983.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1622/C.R. 69/PoL-2 dated 28^th January, 2022 of Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 28.01.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s)

arising out of the complaint dated 25.01.2022 lodged by Sh. Swapnil Arun Panchbhai, Proprietor of M/s Sai Ashirwad

Services, Plot No. 1057, Ashirwad Nagar, Nagpur against Shri Sudhanshu Shrivastava, Sub Area Manager, Western

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2081

Coalfields Limited Makardhokra Site-III, Umred, Nagpur wherein the role of Sh. Amit Sinha, employee of M/s Sainik

Mining & Allied Services Limited Makardhokra Site-III, Umred, Nagpur was also found u/s 120B of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), based on which a

CBI Case RC 0282022A0002 has been registered on 28.01.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in

relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/33/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022

का.आ. 984.—केन्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री एम. गंगािर िेट्टी अजिविा को, 81वें अपर जसटी जसजवल और सत्र न्यायालय

बैंगलोर, के समक्ष दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना (केंरीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो), द्वारा संजस्ट्थत केरीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो मामला

आरसी-17(एस)/2019-सीबीआई/एसीबी/बीएलआर, सीसी सं. 565/2021 (योगेि गौडा ित्या मामला) और सीसी सं.

1856/2022 और तत्समय प्रवृत्त जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत दकसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण न्यायालय में दकसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण

और/या इन मामलों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य मामलों के अजभयोिन का संचालन करने के जलए, उनके पिग्रिण करने की

तारीख से तीन वषि की अनजिक अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटान िोने तक, इनमें से िो भी पूवितर िो, जविेष लोक

अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुि करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 225/03/2022-एडीवी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022

S.O. 984.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri M. Gangadhara Shetty, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of CBI Case RC-17(S)/2019-CBI/ACB/BLR instituted by Delhi

Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), CC No. 565/2021 (Yogesh Gowda Murder Case) and

CC No. 1856/2021 before the 81^st Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bangalore and any appeal, revision

and/or other matters arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional court established by law for the time being

in force for a period not exceeding three years from the date of assumption of charge or till disposal of the case,

whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/03/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022

का.आ. 985.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 313/पोल-2, दिनांक 18.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मेससि

ठरयाल् टो एजज़िम प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, इसके जनिेिकगण नामत: श्री सुजचत चंरकांत पटेल, श्रीमती मनीषा चंरकांत पटेल,

श्रीमती वषाि मिेि पटेल तथा श्री दिनेि घनश् याम िानी, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों तथा अन्य के जवरुद्ध सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया

तथा बैंक ऑफ इंजडया को 142.72 करोड़ रुपए की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 25.03.2021 को श्री पी. के.

िगन, उप मिाप्रबंिक, सेंरल बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, िवाबयुि पठरसंपजत्त प्रबंिन िाखा (स्ट् रेस्ट् ड एसेट्स मैंनेिमैंट ब्ांच), नरीमन

पॉइंट, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन

से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििि कराई गई

जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा उसके मूल अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा

और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने

के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती

िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/49/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

2082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022

S.O. 985.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 313/POL-2 dated 18.04.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 25.03.2021 lodged

by Shri P. K. Jagan, Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch-1,

Nariman Point, Mumbai against M/s Rialto Exim Pvt. Ltd., its Directors namely Shri Suchit Chandrakant Patel, Smt.

Manisha Chandrakant Patel, Smt. Varsha Mahesh Patel and Shri Dinesh Ghanshym Jani, unknown public servants

and others for causing wrongful loss of Rs. 142.72 crores to the Central Bank of India and Bank of India, punishable

under section 120B r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and substantive offences thereof and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/49/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022

का.आ. 986.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि संख्या. सीबीआई 2021/सी.आर. 336/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 18.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

मैससि ए. बी. एंड कंपनी ग्लोबल प्राइवेट जल., इनके जनिेिकगण नामत: श्री अरनवंि रामािोर यािव, श्री नटवर िठरप्रसाि

अग्रवाल, श्री रिनीि कांथेर, श्री सुनील अग्रवाल, श्री नरेंर राठौर, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं अन्य के जवरुद्ध यजनयन बैंक

ऑफ इंजडया को 38.72 करोड़ रूपये की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 28.05.2021 को श्री टी. िीन ियाल,

उपमिाप्रबंिक, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, िबावयुि पठरसम्पजत्त प्रबंिन िाखा, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860

का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार

जनवारण अजिजनयम, 2018 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित दकया गया था) की िारा

13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि मे ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का

अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडयंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी

संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस

स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/48/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022

S.O. 986.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/C.R. 336/Pol-2 dated 18.04.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 28.05.2021 lodged

by Shri T. Deena Dayal, Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch,

Mumbai against M/S A. B. & Co. Global Pvt. Ltd., its Directors namely Shri Arvind Ramajor Yadav, Shri Natwar

Hariprasad Agrawal, Shri Rajneesh Kanther, Shri Sunil Agrawal, Shri Narendra Rathore, unknown public servants

and others for causing wrongful loss of Rs. 38.72 crores to the Union Bank of India, punishable under section 120B

r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and substantive offences thereof and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/48/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2083

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022

का.आ. 987.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 254/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 11.10.2021 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

आपराजिक षड्यंत्र, आपराजिक न्यायभंग, छल, मूल्यवान प्रजतभूजत की कूटरचना, छल के प्रयोिन के जलए कूटरचना,

कूटरजचत िस्ट्तावेि को प्रामाजणक िस्ट्तावेि के रूप में प्रयोग करने, जवजिमान्य पाठरश्रजमक के अजतठरि पठरतोषण लेने,

अपरािों का िुष्प्रेरण और आपराजिक अवचार के संबंि में (1) श्री अिोक पुरूस्ट्वानी, तत्कालीन वठरष्ठ प्रबंिक, युजनयन

बैंक ऑफ इजण्डया, जविेिी मुरा जवभाग, एआर स्ट्रीट िाखा, मुंबई, (2) श्री आजमल फ्रुटवाला, जनिेिक, मैससि एएन

फॉरेजस, (3) जनिेिकगण, मैससि अल जिन्ि एजसपोटिस एलएलपी, (4) जनिेिकगण, मैससि िी िैख’स इंटरनेिनल रेनडंग

एलएलपी, (5) जनिेिकगण, मैससि रूमस्ट्टर रेनडंग प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, (6) जनिेिकगण, मैससि वाल्टन रेडेनलंग प्राइवेट

जलजमटेड, (7) जनिेिकगण, मैससि आिापुरा टेजसफैब प्राइवेट जलजमटेड, (8) जनिेिकगण, मैससि आिापुरा जलोदिंग प्राइवेट

जलजमटेड, (9) जनिेिकगण, मैससि आिापुरा एजसपोटिस, (10) श्री प्रिान्त पाकिर, (11) श्री रूपेि तुकाराम चवान और

अन्य के जवरूद्ध भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 409, 420, 467, 468 और 471

तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक

26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 7, 12 और 13(1)(डी) के तित दकए गए

अजभकजथत िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में सुश्री पी. डब्लयू. िोन्स, िाखा प्रमुख, युजनयन बैंक ऑफ इजण्डया, एआर स्ट्रीट

ब्ांच, मुंबई, द्वारा दिनांक 23.07.2020 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे

अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडयंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए

या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की

िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/47/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022

S.O. 987.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 254/Pol-2 dated 11.10.2021 of Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 23.07.2020 lodged

by Ms. P. W. Jones, Branch Head, Union Bank of India, AR Street Branch, Mumbai alleging against (1) Shri Ashok

Puruswani, the then Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Forex Department, AR Street Branch, Mumbai, (2) Sh.

Aamil Fruitwala, Director of M/s AN Forex, (3) Director(s) of M/s Al Hind Exports and Imports LLP, (4) Director(s)

of M/s The Shaik’s International Trading LLP, (5) Director(s) of M/s Roomster Trading Pvt. Ltd., (6) Director(s) of

Walton Tradeling Pvt. Ltd., (7) Director(s) of M/s Ashapura Texfab Pvt. Ltd., (8) Director(s) of Ashapura Clothing

Pvt. Ltd., (9) Director(s) of M/s Ashapura Exports, (10) Shri Prashant Parkar, (11) Shri Rupesh Tukaram Chavan and

others, pertaining to criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for

purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, taking gratification other than legal remuneration, abetment

of offences and criminal misconduct, punishable under section 120 r/w 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian

Penal Code (45 of 1860) and sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1860) (as

stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/47/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022

का.आ. 988.—केन्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम,1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, झारखंड राज्य सरकार की अजिसूचना

सं. 10/सीबीआई-407/2021-4110/रांची, दिनांक 28.09.2021, गृि, कारागार एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची के

माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मेससि स्ट्वाजत माइननंग प्रा. जल., इसके जनिेिकगण श्री अिोक कुमार केिरीवाल और अजमत

कुमार केिरीवाल तथा ऋण के प्रत्याभूजत-िातागण श्री सुिीर चंर मंडल और श्री िठर मोिन मंडल व अन्य के जवरुद्ध बैंक

ऑफ इंजडया को लगभग रु. 6.99 करोड़ की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए उप आंचजलक प्रबंिक (आर), बैंक ऑफ इंजडया,

आंचजलक कायािलय, रांची द्वारा भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी/409/420/467/468/471 के

तित ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य

समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/25/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022

S.O. 988.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No. 10/CBI-407/2021-4110/Ranchi dated 28.09.2021 Department

of Home, Prisons and Disaster Management, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under section 120

B/409/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) arising out of the complaint lodged by Dy. Zonal

Manager(R), Bank of India, Zonal Office, Ranchi against M/s Swati Mining Pvt. Ltd., its Directors Shri Ashok

Kumar Kejriwal and Amit Kumar Kejriwal and Guarantors of loan Shri Sudhir Chandra Mondal and Shri Hari Mohan

Mandal and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 6.99 crores to the Bank of India and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/25/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2022

का.आ. 989.—केन्र सरकार एति् द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार, गृि जवभाग,

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1621/सीआर 683/पीओएल–2, दिनांक 22.02.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मैससि

बेिेल ज्वैलरी (इजण्डया) प्रा. जल. (पूवि में डी’ िमास ज्वैलरी (इजण्डया) प्रा. जल. के नाम से िाना िाता था) एवं इनके

प्रमोटर/जनिेिक एवं गारंटर श्री मेहुल जचनुभाई चोकसी, अन्य जनिेिकों श्रीमती चेतना ियंतीलाल झावेरी, दिनेि

गोपालिास भाठटया एवं श्री जमनलंि अनंत जलमये, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं अन्य के जवरूद्ध केनरा बैंक एवं बैंक ऑफ

मिाराष्ट्रा को लगभग 55.27 करोड़ रूपये की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 30.08.2021 को श्री पी. संतोष, मुख्य

मिाप्रबंिक केनरा बैंक, सकिल ऑदफस, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा

420 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक

26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनीय

अपरािों के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे

सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडंयन्त्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न

दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/50/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2085

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2022

S.O. 989.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1621/CR 683/POL-2 dated 22.02.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 30.08.2021 lodged

by Shri P. Santosh, Chief General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Mumbai against M/s Bezel Jewellery (India)

Pvt. Ltd. (previously known as D’damas Jewellery (India) Pvt. Ltd.), its Promoter/Director & Guarantor Shri Mehul

Chinubhai Choksi, other Directors Smt. Chetna Jayantilal Jhaveri, Dinesh Gopaldas Bhatia and Shri Milind Anant

Limaye, unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 55.27 crores to the Canara

Bank and Bank of Maharashtra, punishable under section 120B r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the

amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/50/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2022

का.आ. 990.— केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रिेि राज् य सरकार, गृि (पुजलस)

अनुभाग-4, लखनऊ के आिेि सं. 2187ख/VI-पी-4-21-10(42)/2019, दिनांक 21 जसतंबर, 2021 के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत अलकेजमस्ट्ट इन्फ्रा ठरयलटी जल. और अलकेजमस्ट्ट टाउनजिप जल. के माध्यम से श्री के. डी. नसंि, भूतपूवि सिस्ट्य,

राज्य सभा व 08 अन्य द्वारा लालच िे कर िनता से करोड़ों रुपए के जनवेि के संबंि में कोतवाली पुजलस थाना, जिला

आिमगढ़ में भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 406, 419 और 420 के तित दिनांक 02.02.2021 को ििि

मामला अपराि सं. 034/2021 से िुड़े अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि

का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त उत्तर

प्रिेि राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/14/2020-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2022

S.O. 990.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued vide Notification No. 2187 kha/VI-P-4-21-10(42)P/2019 dated 21 September,

2019, Home (Police) Section-4, Lucknow, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) relating to Case

Crime No. 034/2021, registered at P.S. Kotwali, District-Azamgarh on 02.02.2021, under sections 406, 419 and 420

of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) pertaining to investment of crores of rupees by the public under allurement by

Shri. K. D. Singh, former Member, Rajya Sabha and 08 others through Alchemist Infra Reality Ltd. and Alchemist

Township Ltd., and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)

and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/14/2020-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2022

का.आ. 991.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज् य सरकार,

आिेि सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 493/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 25.08.2021, गृि जवभाग, मुंबई, के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से, श्री अनूप कुमार अवाले, कल्याण जनरीक्षक, िक्षीण पूवि मध्य रेलवे, नागपुर के जवरूद्ध दिनांक 24.08.2021 को

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित ििि कराई गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक

25.08.2021 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी0282021ए0004 ििि की गई िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण

तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में

दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों

की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 25.08.2021 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/70/2021-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2022

S.O. 991.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/C.R. 493/POL-2 dated 25.08.2021, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(ex post facto w.e.f. 25.08.2021) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of

the complaint dated 24.08.2021 against Shri Anup Kumar Awale, Welfare Inspector, South East Central Railway,

Nagpur under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); based on which a CBI Case RC0282021A0004

has been registered on 25.08.2021 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with

such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the

same facts.

[F. No. 228/70/2021-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2022

का.आ. 992.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट्थान राज् य सरकार की अजिसूचना

सं. एफ.19(32)गृि-5/2021, दिनांक 14.10.2021, गृि (गृ-V) जवभाग, ियपुर के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री

गुलकेि मीना, तत्कालीन ईई, िीई(1), गोपालपुरा ऑन सी, एमईएस, भुवनेश्वर (उड़ीसा) के समीप, श्री चतरू लाल मीना

पुत्र श्री बीरबल मीना, जनवासी जनमोि, तिसील मलराणाडुंगर, जिला सवाई मािोपुर (रािस्ट्थान) और श्री रामावतार

मीना पुत्र श्री रामकरण, जनवासी खाटकलां, थाना मैनटाउन, जिला सवाई मािोपुर (रािस्ट्थान) द्वारा आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों

से अजिक िन संबंिी सािन या संपजत्त रखने के संबंि में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के

अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(बी) और भारतीय िण्ड संजिता, 1860 (1860

का 45) की िारा 109 के तित अजभकजथत अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

समस्ट्त रािस्ट्थान राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/05/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2087

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2022

S.O. 992.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F. 19(32)Home-5/2021 dated 14.10.2021, Home (Gr.V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) under section 13(2) r/w section

13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) ( as amended by the Act 16 of 2018) and section 109

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) alleged to have been committed by Shri Gulkesh Meena, the then EE,

GE(1), Gopalpura on Sea, MES, near Bhuvaneshwar (Orissa), Shri Chatru Lal Meena S/o Shri Birbal Meena, R/o

Nimod, Tehsil Malaranadungar, Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) and Shri Ramavtar Meena S/o Shri Ramkaran,

R/o Khatkalan, Police Station Mantown, Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) pertaining to be in possession of

pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/05/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2022

का.आ. 993.—केंर सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का अजिजनयम

संख्या 25) की िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार,

गृि जवभाग, मुंबई के दिनांक 11.10.2021 के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 2020/सीआ. 453/पॉल-2 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत

से, श्री िोग नसंि, न्याजयक सिस्ट्य, केन्रीय प्रिासजनक न्यायाजिकरण एवं सिस्ट्य, प्रजतभूजत अपीलीय न्यायाजिकरण

(एसएटी) द्वारा कजथत रूप से आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों से अजिक आर्थिक संसािनों या संपजत्त के कब्िे में िोने के संबंि में

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 109 एवं भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49)

(2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा संिोिन के पूवि) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(ई) के तित दकए गए अपराि(िों)

का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडयंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी

संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के

सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/07/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2022

S.O. 993.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2020/CR 453/POL-2 dated 11.10.2021, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) under section 109 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (45 of

1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (before

amendment made by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by Shri Jog Singh, Judicial Member, Central

Administrative Tribunal and Member, Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Mumbai pertaining to be in possession of

pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to the known sources of income and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offences(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/07/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2022

का.आ. 994.—केन्र सरकार एति् द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष्ट्र सरकार, गृि जवभाग, मुंबई के

आिेि संख्या- सीबीआई 2020/सीआर 447/पीओएल–2, दिनांक 22 फरवरी 2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मैससि

परमिजि स्ट्टील्स जल., मुंबई, इसके जनिेिकों (1) श्री रािेन्र कुमार चौिरी (2) श्री पंकि अक्षय कुमार रंका (3) श्री

सुजमत ओ. आहुिा, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं अन्य के जवरूद्ध आपराजिक षडयन्त्र, िोखेबािी, िालसािी, िाली िस्ट्तावेिों

को मूल रूप से प्रयोग करके, पि का िुरूपयोग करके बैंक को दिनांक 12.07.2018 तक के ब्याि समेत लगभग 35.89

करोड़ रूपये की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के संबंि में श्री जगरिारी लाल सेिूराम कुन्डलवाल उप मिाप्रबंिक एवं िाखा प्रमुख,

युजनयन बैंक, समाचार मागि िाखा, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420,

468 एवं 471 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में

दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित

िंडनीय अपरािों के सम्बन्ि में दिनांक 17.11.2020 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा

ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससें सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडयंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए

गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की

[फा. सं. 228/40/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2022

S.O. 994.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2020/CR 447/POL-2 dated 22nd February, 2022 of Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offences(s) arising out of the complaint

dated 17.11.2020 lodged by Shri Girdhari Lal Sendu Ram Kundalwal, Deputy General Manager and Branch Head,

Union Bank of India, Samachar Marg Branch, Mumbai against M/s Paramshakti Steels Ltd., Mumbai, its Directors (1)

Shri Rajendra Kumar Choudhary (2) Shri Pankaj Akshaykumar Ranka (3) Sh. Sumeet O. Ahuja, unknown public

servants and others, pertaining to criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, using forged documents as genuine, abuse of

official position and causing wrongful loss to the Bank of approx. 35.89 crores plus interest as on 12.07.2018,

punishable under section 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w

section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or

in connection with such offences(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/40/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2022

का.आ. 995.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, झारखंड राज्य सरकार की अजिसूचना

सं. 10/सीबीआई-406/2021-4129/रांची, दिनांक 29.10.2021, गृि, कारागार एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची के

माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री कामेश्वर राम, तत्कालीन उप-डाकपाल, रमना उप-डाकघर एवं अन्य द्वारा रमना उप-

डाकघर में जवजभन्न डाक खातों से बेईमानी से भुगतान करने तथा उसका िुर्विजनयोिन करने तथा भारत सरकार को सिोष

िाजन पहुँचाने के संबंि में रमना थाना, जिला गढ़वा में दिनांक 26.06.2019 को भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की

िारा 120बी, 420, 467, 468, 469 और 471 के तित ििि मामला अपराि सं. 145/2019 से िुड़े अपराि(िों) का

स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/46/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2089

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2022

S.O. 995.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No. 10/CBI -406/2021-4129/Ranchi dated 29.10.2021, Home,

Prisons and Disaster Management Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) relating to

Case Crime No. 145/2019, registered at Police Station Ramna, District Garhwa on 26.06.2019, under sections 120B,

420, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) pertaining to dishonestly making payments from

various postal accounts at Ramna Sub-Post Office and misappropriation of the same by Shri Kameshwar Ram, the

then Sub Postmaster, Ramna Sub Post Office and others and causing wrongful loss to Government of India and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/46/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 996.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं.सीबीआई 2020/सीआर 457/पोल-2, दिनांक 27.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मेससि मैजस

फ्लेजस & इमेनिंग जसस्ट्टम्स जल., इसके प्रबंि जनिेिक/प्रत्याभूजत-िाता श्री जितेि रिनीकांत िोबाजलया, इसके

जनिेिकगण/प्रत्याभूजत-िातागण नामतः श्री जनमेि नवीनचंर िाि एवं श्रीमती दिप्ती जितेि िोबाजलया, अज्ञात सरकारी

सेवकों व अन्य के जवरुद्ध भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक एवं संघ के आठ अन्य सिस्ट्य बैंकों को लगभग 464.41 करोड़ रुपए की सिोष

िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 11.12.2020 को श्री बालािी कुमार नसंि सामंता, उपमिाप्रबंिक, िबावयुि पठरसंपजत्त

प्रबंिन िाखा-I, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक, कफ परेड, कोलाबा, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी

सपठठत िारा 420 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में

िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा उसके मूल अपराि(िों) से

िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से

उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/53/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2022

S.O. 996.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 2020/CR 457/POL-2 dated 27.04.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 11.12.2020 lodged

by Shri Balaji Kumar Singh Samanta, Deputy General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch-I, State Bank of

India, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai against M/s Max Flex & Imaging Systems Ltd., its Managing

Director/Guarantor Shri Hitesh Rajnikant Jobalia, its Directors/Guarantors namely Shri Nimesh Navinchandra Shah

and Smt. Dipti Hitesh Jobalia, unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 464.41

crores to the State Bank of India and eight other consortium member banks, punishable under section 120B r/w

section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)

and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/53/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 18 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 997.—केन्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट्थान राज्य सरकार के गृि

(िीआर.-V) जवभाग, ियपुर की अजिसूचना सं. एफ. 19(12) िोम-5/2022, दिनांक 18.02.2022 के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से, श्री सुरेि पुनीया, नागौर ििर के तत्कालीन कायिवािक सब पोस्ट्ट मास्ट्टर, नॉन जडलीवरी पोस्ट्ट ऑदफस के

जवरूद्ध कपट, मित्वपूणि प्रजतभूजत की िालसािी, कपट के उद्देश्य िेतु िालसािी, िाली िस्ट्तावे़ि का मूल रूप से प्रयोग,

खातों का जमथ्याकरण, लोक सेवक द्वारा आपराजिक किाचार और भारत सरकार को सिोष िाजन पहुंचाने के संबंि में

श्री रामलाल मूंड, डाकघर अिीक्षक नागौर प्रभाग, नागौर, रािस्ट्थान द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की

िाराओं 420, 467, 468, 471 एवं 477ए और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (वषि 2018 के

अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथासंिोजित) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(ए) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में

दिनांक 01.12.2021 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या

उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त रािस्ट्थान राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/38/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th July, 2022

S.O. 997.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19(12)Home-5/2022 dated 18.02.2022 of Home(Gr.-V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offences(s) arising out of the complaint dated

01.12.2021 lodged by Shri Ramlal Moond, Superintendent of Post Offices, Nagaur Division, Nagaur, Rajasthan

against Shri Suresh Puniya, the then officiating Sub Post Master of Nagaur City, Non-Delivery Post Office, pertaining

to cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document,

falsification of accounts, criminal misconduct by public servant and causing wrongful loss to Government of India,

punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w

section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by the Act 16 of 2018) and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offences(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/38/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 998.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज् य सरकार, गृि 4 िाखा, गृि

एवं न् याय जवभाग के ज्ञापन सं.: 07/94/2021-1एच4(3एच4)/1488, दिनांक 10.03.2022 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत

से मेससि बिाि बासमती प्रा. जल., फाज़िल्का रोड, िलालाबाि, इसके जनिेिक श्री साजिल बिाि, एक दिवंगत जनिेिक के

अजतठरि, इसके प्रत्याभूजत-िातागण श्रीमती जविय रानी बिाि, श्री प्रेम कुमार बिाि और श्रीमती िषि नरुला, मेससि

के.के. जब्जस कंपनी, मेससि बिाि फ्यूएल कंपनी, मेससि बिाि सॉट्सि तथा अन्य के जवरुद्ध िोखािड़ी, आपराजिक

न्यासभंग, सरकारी पि का िुरुपयोग और बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र को लगभग 57.01 करोड़ रुपए की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के

जलए दिनांक 14.07.2021 को श्री सुिांत कुमार गुप्ता, आंचजलक प्रबंिक, बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र, चंडीगढ़ अंचल द्वारा भारतीय

िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों

के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों), का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या

उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त पंिाब राज् य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/59/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2091

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2022

S.O. 998.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.07/94/2021-1H4(3H4)/1488 dated 10.03.2022, Home 4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 14.07.2021 lodged by Shri Sushant Kumar Gupta, Zonal Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Chandigarh

Zone against M/s Bajaj Basmati Pvt. Ltd., Fazilka Road, Jalalabad, its Director Shri Sahil Bajaj besides a deceased

Director, its Guarantors Smt. Vijay Rani Bajaj, Shri Prem Kumar Bajaj and Smt. Harsh Narula, M/s K.K. Bricks

Company, M/s Bajaj Fuel Company, M/s Bajaj Sorts and others, pertaining to cheating, criminal breach of trust,

abuse of official position and causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 57.01 crores to the Bank of Maharashtra

punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)

and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/59/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 999.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं.सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 330/पोल-2, दिनांक 27.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मेससि

बाल्डोजवनो के माजलक श्री ररंदकन दकठरट िाि & एसोजसएट्स, अज्ञात सरकारी सेवकों व अन्य के जवरुद्ध यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ

इंजडया को लगभग 14.32 करोड़ रुपए की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 24.05.2021 को श्री टी. िीना ियाल, उप

मिाप्रबंिक, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, तनावग्रस्ट्त आजस्ट्तयां प्रबंिन िाखा, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का

45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा

13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा उसके

मूल अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए

[फा. सं. 228/62/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2022

S.O. 999.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 2021/CR 330/POL-2 dated 27.04.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 24.05.2021 lodged

by Shri T. Deena Dayal, Deputy General Manager, Union Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch,

Mumbai against proprietor Shri Rikin Kirit Shah & Associates of M/s Baldovino, unknown public servants and others

for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 14.32 crores to the Union Bank of India, punishable under section 120B r/w

section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and substantive offence thereof and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/62/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 1000.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

एवं न् याय जवभाग के ज्ञापन सं.: 08/09/2022-1एच4(3एच4)/2697, दिनांक 26.04.2022 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत

से मेससि बिाि बासमती प्रा. जल. और इस के जनिेिक श्री साजिल बिाि, िलालाबाि (वेस्ट्ट) जिला फाज़िल्का, अज्ञात

लोक सेवकों तथा अन्य के जवरुद्ध भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक को लगभग 104.59 करोड़ रुपए की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए

दिनांक 09.12.2021 को श्री प्रिीप कुमार पांिी, उप मिाप्रबंिक, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक, तनावग्रस्ट्त आजस्ट्तयां प्रबंिन िाखा,

लुजियाना द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49)

के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों), का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे

अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या

उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों

और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त पंिाब राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/60/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2022

S.O. 1000.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.08/09/2022-1H4(3H4)/2697 dated 26.04.2022, Home 4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 09.12.2021 lodged by Shri Pardeep Kumar Pandhi, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Management Branch, Ludhiana against M/s Bajaj Basmati Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Shri Sahil Bajaj,

Jalalabad (West) Distt. Fazilka, unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 104.59

crores to the State Bank of India punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with

such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the

same facts.

[F. No. 228/60/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 1001.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज् य सरकार, गृि एवं न् याय

जवभाग के ज्ञापन सं.: 07/57/2021-1एच4(3एच4)/4964, दिनांक 20.09.2021 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत से मेससि

प्योर फु्स जल., इस के तत्कालीन जनिेिकगण, नामतः श्री राम ियाल गगि, श्री ओम प्रकाि निंिल, श्री रानिंिर निंिल,

श्री अिोक कुमार वमाि, श्री जवनोि कुमार गोयल और श्री प्रवीण कुमार कंसल, श्री कमल भूषण झाम्ब, चाटिडि अकाउंटेंट,

अज्ञात लोक सेवकों तथा अन्य के जवरुद्ध भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक को लगभग 6,515.52 लाख रुपए की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के

जलए दिनांक 06.08.2018 को श्री सजतन्िर कुमार छावड़ा, क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक, आरबीओ-III, अमरीक नसंि

रोड, भरटंडा द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िाराएं 409, 420 और 477ए तथा

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को

दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में

ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों), जिनके आिार पर दिनांक 20.10.2021 को सीबीआई मामला

आरसीबीडी1/2021/ई/0006/सीबीआई/बीएसएफबी/दिल्ली ििि दकया गया िै, का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे

और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव, दिनांक 20.10.2021 से) समस्ट् त पंिाब राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/57/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2093

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2022

S.O. 1001.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.07/57/2021-1H4(3H4)/4964 dated 20.09.2021, Department of Home

Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 20.10.2021) to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising

out of the complaint dated 06.08.2018 lodged by Shri Satinder Kumar Chhabra, Regional Manager, State Bank of

India, RBO-III, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda against M/s Pure Foods Ltd., its then Directors namely Shri Ram Dayal

Garg, Shri Om Prakash Jindal, Shri Rajinder Jindal, Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, Shri Vinod Kumar Goyal and Shri

Praveen Kumar Kansal, Shri Kamal Bhushan Jhamb, Chartered Accountant, unknown public servants and others for

causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs.6,515.52 lacs to the State Bank of India punishable under section 120B r/w

sections 409, 420 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) based on which a CBI case RCBD1/2021/E/0006/CBI/BSFB/Delhi has been registered on

20.10.2021 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for

any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/57/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 1002.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए िठरयाणा राज् य सरकार, गृि जवभाग,

चण्डीगढ़, की अजिसूचना सं. 20/1/2022-3एचिी-I, दिनांक 13.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, िीमापुर,

नागालैंड जनवासी सुश्री रोिी संगमा की अल्फा िेल्थकेयर िॉजस्ट्पटल, गुरुग्राम में इलाि कराने के िौरान दिनांक

24.06.2021 को हुई संिेिास्ट्पि मृत्यु के संबंि में भारतीय िंड संजिता,1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 304-ए के अंतगित

दकए गए अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा

षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए

दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त िठरयाणा राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/58/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd July, 2022

S.O. 1002.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Haryana issued vide Notification No.20/1/2022-3HG-I dated 13.04.2022, Home Department,

Chandigarh, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to

the whole State of Haryana for investigation into the offences(s) under section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(45 of 1860) pertaining to suspicious death of Ms. Rosy Sangma, a resident of Dimapur, Nagaland on 24.06.2021,

while taking treatment in Alfaa Healthcare Hospital, Gurugram and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in

relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/58/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 1003.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

एवं न् याय जवभाग के ज्ञापन सं.: 08/07/2022-1एच4(3एच4)/2696, दिनांक 26.04.2022 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत

से (i) मेससि जलठटल बी इंटरनेिनल प्रा. जल. और इस के जनिेिकगण/प्रत्याभूजत-िातागण, (ii) श्री िाि़िािा नसंि कपूर, (iii)

श्रीमती परनवंिर कौर कपूर, (iv) श्रीमती सरबप्रीत कौर कपूर और (v) श्री रािा नसंि कपूर, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों तथा अन्य

2094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

के जवरुद्ध बैंक ऑफ इंजडया को लगभग 9.20 करोड़ रुपए की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 30.03.2021 को श्री

प्रमोि चंिर िमाि, उप आंचजलक प्रबंिक (वसूली), बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, वसूली जवभाग, लुजियाना आंचजलक कायािलय द्वारा

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त पंिाब राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/61/2022-एवीडी-II]

रािीव कुमार खरे, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2022

S.O. 1003.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.08/07/2022-1H4(3H4)/2696 dated 26.04.2022, Home 4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 30.03.2021 lodged by Shri Parmod Chander Sharma, Deputy Zonal Manager(Recovery), Bank of

India, Recovery Department, Ludhiana Zonal Office against (i) M/s Little Bee International Pvt. Ltd. and its

Directors/Guarantors (ii) Shri Shahzada Singh Kapoor, (iii) Smt. Parvinder Kaur Kapoor, (iv) Smt. Sarabpreet Kaur

Kapoor and (v) Shri Raja Singh Kapoor, unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx.

Rs. 9.20 crores to the Bank of India punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with

such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same

facts.

[F. No. 228/61/2022-AVD-II]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 िुलाई, 2022

का.आ. 1004.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज् य सरकार, अजिसूचना

िी.ओ., (एमएस.) संख्या 76/2021/गृि, दिनांक 3 माचि 2021, गृि (एम) जवभाग, जतरूवनंतपुरम (एस.आर.ओ. संख्या

283/2021 के रूप में प्रकाजित), के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से श्री िमीर, पुत्र श्री अब्िुल सलाम की ित्या के संबंि में

दिनांक 01.10.2020 को जत्रसूर टाउन ईस्ट्ट पुजलस थाना, जिला जत्रसूर जसटी, केरल में ििि प्राथजमकी संख्या 3502/2020

से संबंजित अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा

के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/43/2021-एवीडी-II]

रािीव कुमार खरे, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 28th July, 2022

S.O. 1004.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 76/2021/HOME dated 3^rd March, 2021, Home(M)

Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published as S.R.O. No. 283/2021], hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of

the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the

offences(s) relating to FIR No. 3502/2020, registered on 01.10.2020 at Thrissur Town East Police Station, District

Thrissur City, Kerala pertaining to the death of Shri Shameer, S/o Shri Abdul Salam and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/43/2021-AVD-II]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2095

नई दिल्ली, 1 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 1005.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज् य सरकार के गृि (एम)

जवभाग, जतरुवनंतपुरम, की अजिसूचना िी.ओ. (एमएस) सं. 164/2021/गृि, दिनांक 6 अिूबर, 2021 [एस.आर.ओ. सं.

743/2021के रूप में प्रकाजित] के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से केनरा बैंक, पातनामजतट्टा में अनुरजक्षत एक खाते से एक

जलजपक, नामतः श्री जवजिि वगीि द्वारा बेइमानी से िनराजि का िुर्विजनयोिन करने के संबंि में भारतीय िंड संजिता

(1860 का 45) की िाराएं 409 और 420 के तित सीबी सीआर.112/सीबी/केएलएम & पीटीए/आर/2021 (पातनामजतट्टा

पुजलस थाना का अपराि सं. 233/2021 से संबद्ध अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध

समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/01/2022–एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 1st August, 2022

S.O. 1005.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O. (Ms) No. 164/2021/HOME dated 6^th October, 2021, Home(M)

Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published as S.R.O. No. 743/2021], hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of

the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the

offence(s) relating to CB Cr.112/CB/KLM & PTA/R/2021 (Crime No. 233/2021 of Pathanamthitta Police Station)

under sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) pertaining to dishonest misappropriation of money

from an account maintained in the Canara Bank, Pathanamthitta by a clerk namely Shri Vijish Varghese and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/01/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 1006.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम,1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सीआर19ए/पोल-2, दिनांक 22 फरवरी, 2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

यूके/आयरलैंड के तिथि एिेंट के रूप में मेससि डीकेटी ऑलसी़ि जिनपंग जलजमटेड (डीकेटीए), लंिन, यूके को जनयुि दकए

िाने तथा एक जनयजमत एिेंट को जनयुि करने में अपने कतिव्य के जनविन में असफल रिने, जिसके पठरणामस्ट्वरूप वतिमान

तिथि एिेंट को जनबाि रूप से अपने काम िारी रखने का अवसर प्राप्त हुआ और जिससे भारतीय नौविन जनगम को सिोष

िाजन पहुँची, के संबंि में भारतीय नौविन जनगम (एससीआई), मुंबई के अज्ञात अजिकाठरयों द्वारा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988(1988 का 49) के तित दकए गए आपराजिक िुराचार के अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे

अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए

[फा. सं. 228/39/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2022

S.O. 1006.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1622/CR 19A/POL-2 dated 22^nd February, 2022 of Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offences(s) of criminal misconduct under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) by the unknown officials of Shipping Corporation of India (SCI),

2096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mumbai in appointment of M/s DKT Allseas Shipping Limited (DKTA), London, UK as adhoc agent for UK/Ireland

and failure on their part to appoint a regular agent resulting in the continuance of the present adhoc agent without any

hinderance and thereby causing wrongful loss to Shipping Corporation of India and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offences(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of

the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/39/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 1007.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उत्तर प्रिेि राज् य सरकार के उत्तर प्रिेि

िासन, गृि (गोपन) अनुभाग-8, लखनऊ, के आिेि सं. 362/25-8-2022-928/2020, दिनांक 24.05.2022 के माध्यम

से िारी सम्मजत से संपत्ती प्लॉट सं. 102, गांिी नगर, गाज़ियाबाि के संबंि में जसिानी गेट पुजलस थाना, गाज़ियाबाि में

भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 420, 467, 468 और 471 के तित दिनांक 13.09.2019 को

ििि प्राथजमकी सं.1428/2019 से िुड़े अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

प्रिेि राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/66/2022–एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2022

S.O. 1007.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Uttar Pradesh issued vide Notification No.362/25-8-2022-928/2020 dated 24.05.2022, Uttar Pradesh

Shasan, Grih (Gopan) Section-8, Lucknow, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) relating to FIR

No. 1428/2019 registered at Police Station Sihani Gate, Ghaziabad on 13.09.2019 under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) pertaining to the property Plot No.102, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/66/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 1008.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं.सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 77/पोल-2, दिनांक 18.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मेससि

पीएसएल जल., इसके प्रबंि जनिेिक श्री अिोक योनगंिर पुंि, इसके साविकाजलक जनिेिकगण, नामतः, श्री रािेन्िर कुमार

सूरि बािरी, श्री सुरेंर पॉल भाठटया, जचतरंिन कुमार िगिीिचंर गोयल और श्री मुरली मनोिर माथुर, श्री आलोक

योगेंिर पुंि, अ-कायिकारी जनिेिक, अज्ञात सरकारी सेवकों व अन्य के जवरुद्ध केनरा बैंक को लगभग 428.50 करोड़ रुपए

की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 14.12.2020 को श्री पी. संतोष, मुख्य मिाप्रबंिक, केनरा बैंक, मण्डलीय

कायािलय, बीकेसी, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 और भ्रष्टाचार

जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए

संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििि

कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2097

िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का

अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र

राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/67/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th August, 2022

S.O. 1008.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 2021/CR 77/POL-2 dated 18.04.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 14.12.2020 lodged

by Shri P. Santosh, Chief General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, BKC, Mumbai against M/s PSL Ltd., its

Managing Director Shri Ashok Yoginder Punj, its whole time Directors namely Shri Rajender Kumar Suraj Bahri, Shri

Surendra Paul Bhatia, Chitranjan Kumar Jagdishchandra Goel and Shri Murli Manohar Mathur, Shri Alok Yogender

Punj, Non-Executive Director, unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 428.50

crores to the Canara Bank, punishable under section 120B r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and

section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the

amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of

the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/67/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 1009.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं.सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 427/पोल-2, दिनांक 19.05.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

श्री कुलिीप िमाि, िाखा प्रबंिक, इंजडयन ओवरसीि बैंक, ििानु िाखा, पालघर के जवरुद्ध दिनांक 17.05.2022 को श्री

जितेंर मोरेश्वर पाठटल, जनवासी मो. डाकघर वािवन, ठटघारे पाड़ा, जिला-पालघऱ, माजलक, मेससि िे. पी. इंटरप्राइिेि

द्वारा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (वषि 2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा

7 के तित ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों), जिनके आिार पर दिनांक 20.05.2022 को सीबीआई मामला

आरसी0262022ए0008 ििि दकया गया िै, का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास,

अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव

से, दिनांक 20.05.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/68/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th August, 2022

S.O. 1009.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1622/C.R. 427/POL-2 dated 19.05.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex

post facto w.e.f. 20.05.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 17.05.2022 lodged by Shri Jitendra Moreshwar Patil, R/o At. PO. Wadhwan, Tighare Pada, Dist. –

Palaghar, Proprietor of M/s J.P. Enterprises against Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank,

Dahanu Branch, Palghar under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act

16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC0262022A0008 has been registered on 20.05.2022 and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/68/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 1010.—केन् र सरकार,एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मिाराष् र राज्य सरकार,गृि जवभाग,

मुंबईके आिेि सं.जमसलेजनयस 0521/सीआर27/2021/स्ट्पेिल. 9,दिनांक 25.07.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

वठरष् ठ पुजलस अजिकाठरयों के स्ट् थानांतरण में किाचार से संबंजित गुप्त िस्ट् तावेिों के लीकेि के संबंि में भारतीय टेलीग्राफ

अजिजनयम,1885 (1885 का 13) की िारा 30 सपठठत सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजनयम, 2000 (2000 का 21) (वषि

2008 में यथासंिोजित) की िाराएं 43(बी) तथा 66 तथा िासकीय गुप् त बात अजिजनयम, 1923 (1923 का 19) की

िारा 5 के तित साइबर पुजलस स्ट् टेिन, मुंबई में ििि सी.आर. सं. 02/2021 िो तिनंतर कोलाबा पुजलस स्ट् टेिन, मुंबई में

स्ट् थानांतठरत दकया गया िै,से िुड़े अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

संबद्ध अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/72/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th August, 2022

S.O. 1010.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. Misc 0521/CR27/2021/Spl.9 dated 25.07.2022, Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) relating to crime registered vide

C.R. No. 02/2021 registered at Cyber Police Station, Mumbai under section 30 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13

of 1885) r/w sections 43(b) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) (as amended in 2008) and

section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) which has been subsequently transferred to Colaba Police

Station, Mumbai relating to leakage of secret documents about unfair practices in transfers of Senior Police Officials

and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/72/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्ट्त, 2022

का.आ. 1011.—केन् र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट्थान राज् य सरकार, के गृि

(िीआर.-V) जवभाग, ियपुर की अजिसूचना सं.एफ.19(50)िोम-5/2022, दिनांक 21.06.2022 के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से श्री अिुिन लाल मीना, सिायक प्रबंिक, एसबीआई, चौड़ा रास्ट्ता, ियपुर, श्री िमेंर ज्ञानानी, जनवासी 119,

नसंिु नगर, ियपुर उर्फि श्री िीपक उर्फि श्री गिानंि एवं अन्य के जवरूद्ध अनुजचत लाभ प्राप्त करने संबंि में के.अ.ब्यूरो,

भ्र.जन.िाखा, ियपुर में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (वषि 2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा

यथासंिोजित) की िाराएं 7, 7ए एवं भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 120 बी के तित िंडनीय

अपरािों के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत सं. सीओ0302022ए0005 से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे

िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त रािस्ट्थान राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/74/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2099

New Delhi, the 26th August, 2022

S.O. 1011.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No.F.19(50)Home-5/2022 dated 21.06.2022, Home (Gr.-V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) punishable under sections 7, 7A of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and section 120B of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), arising out of the complaint No. CO0302022A0005 registered at CBI, ACB, Jaipur

against Shri Arjun Lal Meena, Assistant Manager, SBI, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur, Shri Dharmendra Gyanani, R/o 119,

Sindhu Nagar, Jaipur @ Shri Deepak @ Shri Gajanand and others pertaining to obtainment of undue advantage and

any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/74/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 2 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1012.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम,1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के दिनांक 21.07.2022 के आिेि के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की

िाराएँ 120बी, 331, 384, 379, 447, 448, 449, 454, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 364ए, 365, 389, 504,

506, 511, 109 तथा 34 सपठठत मिाराष्ट्र संगठठत अपराि जनयंत्रण अजिजनयम, 1999 (1999 का मिाराष्ट्र अजिजनयम

सं. 30) की िाराएँ 3(1)(ii), 3(2) और 3(4) के तित कोथरुड थाना, पुणे जसटी में सी.आर. सं. 03/2021 के माध्यम से

ििि अपराि से िुड़े अपराि(िों), इसके साथ-साथ अपराि अन्वेषण जवभाग, पुणे की िाँच सं. 04/2022 के माध्यम से की

गई िाँच, िो दक उपयुि

सी.आर. सं. 03/2021 के संबंि में एक िाँच िै, का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या

उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/71/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2022

S.O. 1012.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order dated 21.07.2022, Home Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the

powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra

for investigation into the offence(s) relating to crime registered vide C.R. No. 03/2021 registered at Kothrud Police

Station, Pune City under sections 120B, 331, 384, 379, 447, 448, 449, 454, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 364A, 365, 389,

504, 506, 511, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) r/w sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the

Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra Act No. 30 of 1999), alongwith enquiry vide

Enquiry No. 04/2022 of Crime Investigation Department, Pune, being an enquiry related to above said C.R. No.

03/2021 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for

any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/71/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 15 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1013.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए गोवा राज्य सरकार, गृि जवभाग

(सामान्य) की अजिसूचना सं. 30/01/2015-सीबीआई/एचडी(िी)/7840, दिनांक 13.09.2022 के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से, श्रीमती सोनाली फोगाट, पत्नी, श्री संिय फोगाट, जनवासी, संत नगर, जिसार, िठरयाणा की मृत्यु के संबंि में

थाना अंिुणा, जिला नॉथि गोवा में भारतीय िण्ड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 302 सपठठत िारा 34 के तित दिनांक

2100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25.08.2022 को ििि प्राथजमकी सं. 134/2022 से िुड़े अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे

संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी

अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त गोवा राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/84/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 15th September, 2022

S.O. 1013.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Goa, issued vide Notification No. 30/01/2015-CBI/HD(G)/7840 dated 13.09.2022, Department of

Home (General), hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Goa for investigation into the offence(s) relating to FIR No. 134/2022, registered

at Police Station Anjuna, District North Goa on 25.08.2022 under section 302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860) pertaining to death of Mrs. Sonali Phogat, wife of Shri Sanjay Phogat, r/o Sant Nagar, Hisar, Haryana

and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/84/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 16 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1014.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-404/2022-2328/रांची, दिनांक 10.06.2022, गृि, कारागार एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची के

माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री रािेंर प्रसाि यािव, ग्रामीण डाक सेवक (िीडीएस), मिेिमुंडा िाखा डाकघऱ, बेंगाबाि

उप डाकघर, जगठरडीि प्रिान डाकघर, जगठरडीि मंडल, जगठरडीि द्वारा अपनी आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों से अजिक िन या

सम्पजत्त अर्िित करने के संबंि में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1949 का 88) (2018 का अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा

यथा संिोजित) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(ई) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में संिोिन पूवि िैसा दक

जवजित दकया गया था) एवं वतिमान में संगत िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(बी) के अंतगित दकए गए अजभकजथत

जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/76/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2022

S.O. 1014.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No. 10/C.B.I.-404/2022-2328/Ranchi dated 10.06.2022, Home,

Prison and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under

section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (e) (as stood before amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and

presently corresponding section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as

amended by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by Shri Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Gramin Dak Sevak

(GDS), Maheshmunda Branch Post Office of Bengabad Sub-Office under Giridih Head Post Office, Giridih Division,

Giridih pertaining to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of

income and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for

any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/76/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2101

नई दिल्ली, 16 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1015.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट् थान राज् य सरकार की अजिसूचना

सं. एफ.19(64)गृि-5/2022, दिनांक 30.06.2022, गृि (िीआर-v) जवभाग, ियपुर के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से

श्री ििी प्रकाि, सिायक (टीआरडी), एनडब्ल्यूआर श्री मािोपुर, जिला-जसकर, श्रीमती मीना सजसेना, कायािलय

अिीक्षक, कषिण जवभाग, डीआरएम कायािलय, एनडब्ल्यूआर ियपुर, रािस्ट्थान तथा अन् य व् यजियों के जवरूद्ध श्री पवन

कुमार, पुत्र श्री राम कुमार, सिायक (टीआरडी), डब्ल्यूसीआर, मण्डलगढ़ द्वारा उनके पारस्ट्पठरक स्ट्थानांतरण के जलए

अनुजचत लाभ की मांग करने के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत सं. सीए0302022ए0062 से उत्पन्न, भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49)(2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िाराएँ 7 एवं 7ए और भारतीय िंड

संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी के तित िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों)

से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों

से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त रािस्ट् थान राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/79/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2022

S.O. 1015.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No.F.19(64) Home-5/2022 dated 30.06.2022, Home (Gr.-V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) punishable under sections 7 and 7A

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and section 120B of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), arising out of the complaint No.CA0302022A0062 lodged by Shri Pawan

Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Assistant (TRD), WCR, Mandalgarh against Shri Shashi Prakash, Assistant (TRD),

NWR Shree Madhopur, Distt. Sikar, Smt. Meena Saxena, Office Superintendent, Traction Department, DRM Office,

NWR Jaipur, Rajasthan and others pertaining to demand of undue advantage for his mutual transfer and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/79/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1016.—केन्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि संख्या- सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 360/पीओएल–2, दिनांक 08.03.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

मैससि िे-माजसि लाइ़फ स्ट्टाईल प्राईवेट जल., इनके जनिेिकों/गारंटरों, नामतः श्री दिनेि िी. िायसवाल और श्रीमती

सुनीता दिनेि कुमार िायसवाल, अज्ञात बैंक अजिकाठरयों/लोक सेवकों एवं अन्य के जवरूद्ध इजण्डयन ओवरसी़ि बैंक को

26.98 करोड़ रूपये की सिोषपूणि िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए दिनांक 28.09.2020 को श्री अिय कुमार ताम्भेकर, मुख्य

क्षेत्रीय प्रबंिक, क्षेत्रीय कायािलय, इजण्डयन ओवरसी़ि बैंक, मेकर टॉवर ई, 5वां तल, कुफ्फी परेड, मुंबई द्वारा भारतीय िंड

संजिता,1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का

49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित दकया गया

था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न

अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससें सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडयंत्र

जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/85/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

2102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2022

S.O. 1016.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 2021/CR 360/POL-2 dated 08.03.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 28.09.2020 lodged

by Shri Ajay Tembhekar, Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, Indian Overseas Bank, Maker Tower E, 5^th

Floor, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai against M/s J-Marks Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., its Directors/Guarantors namely Shri Dinesh

G. Jaiswal and Smt. Sunita Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, unknown bank officials/public servants and others for causing

wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 26.98 crores to the Indian Overseas Bank, punishable under section 120B r/w section

420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)

and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/85/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1017.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मिाराष्ट्र राज् य सरकार, गृि जवभाग,

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सी.बी.आई 1622/सी.आर. 127/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 27.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

श्री मजल्लनाथ कािीनाथ िेउरे, भारतीय रािस्ट्व सेवा, संयुि आयुि, सीिीएसटी एवं सीएजस ़िोन, मुंबई व अन्य द्वारा

अपनी आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों से अजिक िन या सम्पजत्त अर्िित करने के संबंि में भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की

िारा 109 एवं भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 का अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की

िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(बी) के अंतगित दकए गए अजभकजथत िण्डनीय अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे

अपराि(िों)से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या

और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/86/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2022

S.O. 1017.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1622/C.R. 127/Pol-2 dated 27.04.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) punishable under section 109 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as

amended by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by Shri Mallinath Kashinath Jeure, IRS, Joint

Commissioner of CGST and CX Zone, Mumbai and others pertaining to be in possession of pecuniary resources or

property disproportionate to his known sources of income and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to

or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/86/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1018.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 268/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 30.03.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

श्री ए.बी. चतुवेिी, सिायक मण्डलीय अजभयंता(एस), मध्य रेलवे, नागपुर के जवरूद्ध श्री ठरतेि सुभाष सुराना, मेससि

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2103

सुभाष फत्तेचंि सुराना के जिस्ट्सेिार, आवास सं. 31, राम मंदिर वाडि, निंगनघाट, जिला-विाि द्वारा दिनांक 30.03.2022

को भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के

तित ििि कराई गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 30.03.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी 0282022

ए0007 ििि दकया गया िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

(कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 30.03.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/80/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 1018.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1622/C.R. 268/POL-2 dated 30.03.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex

post facto w.e.f. 30.03.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 30.03.2022 lodged by Shri Ritesh Subhash Surana, Partner of M/s Subhash Fattechand Surana,

House No.31, Ram Mandir Ward, Hinganghat, Distt.-Wardha against Shri A.B. Chaturvedi, Assistant Divisional

Engineer(S), Central Railway, Nagpur under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as

amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI Case RC0282022A0007 has been registered on 30.03.2022 and

any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/80/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1019.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 2021/सीआर 332/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 18.04.2022 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत से बैंक

ऑफ मिाराष् र को लगभग 30,66,52,272.08 रू. की सिोषपूणि िाजन पहुंचाने के संबंि में मेससि िे. एम. फेरो अलॉयि

प्रा. जल., श्रीमती ज् योजत दिनेि मेिता, जनिेिक सि गारंटर, श्री चरणिीत िरियाल मेिता, जनिेिक, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों

तथा अन् य के जवरूद्ध दिनांक 31.05.2021 को श्री जववेक बी. घाटे, मिाप्रबंिक, बैंक ऑफ मिाराष् र, तनावग्रस्ट्त आजस्ट्तयां

प्रबंिन िाखा, मुम् बई द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 तथा भ्रष् टाचार

जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी) (1988 का 49) (भ्रष् टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम,

1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को हुए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) के तित िंडनीय अपराि(िों) के संबंि मे ििि

कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) तथा उसके मूल अपरािों का अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि से िुड़े या उससे

संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी

समस्ट् त मिाराष् र राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/81/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 1019.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 2021/CR 332/POL-2 dated 18.04.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 31.05.2021 lodged

by Shri Vivek B. Ghate, General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Stressed Asset Management Branch, Mumbai

against M/s J.M. Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Smt. Jyoti Dinesh Mehta, Director cum Guarantor, Shri Charanjeet Hardayal

2104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mehta, Director, unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 30,66,52,272.08 to the

Bank of Maharashtra, punishable under section 120B r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and

section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the

amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and substantive offences thereof and

any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/81/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1020.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम,1946 (1946 का 25) की

जवभाग, गृि 4 िाखा के ज्ञापन सं. 08/04/2022-1एच4(3एच4)/1492, दिनांक 10.03.2022 के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से, खुला बा़िार जबिी योिना के अंतगित िारी स्ट्टॉक में अजनयजमतताओं के संबंि में गैर-सरकारी व्यजियों/पार्टियों

एवं भारतीय खाद्य जनगम, माकिफेड एवं पीयूएनएसयूपी के अज्ञात अजिकाठरयों के जवरूद्ध सिायक मिाप्रबंिक (सतकिता),

भारतीय खाद्य जनगम, चंडीगढ़ द्वारा दिनांक 30.09.2021 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण

की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त पंिाब राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/82/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 1020.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.08/04/2022-1H4(3H4)/1492 dated 10.03.2022, Home 4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 30.09.2021 lodged by Assistant General Manager (Vig.), Food Corporation of India, Chandigarh

against private persons/parties and unknown officials of Food Corporation of India, Markfed and PUNSUP pertaining

to irregularities in stock issued under Open Market Sale Scheme and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in

relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/82/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1021.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज् य सरकार, गृि, कारा एवं

आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची की अजिसूचना सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-408/2022-2174, दिनांक 02.06.2022, के माध्यम से

िारी सम्मजत से श्री अभय कुमार, मिाप्रबंिक (पठरयोिना) तथा श्री रािीव रंिन, उप मिाप्रबंिक (पठरयोिना), रेल

इंजडया टेदिकल तथा इकोनॉजमक सर्विस जलजमटेड, रांची, श्री अवतार नसंि, माजलक, मेससि िरिेव कंस्ट् रज िन प्रा. जल., श्री

िजि, कमिचारी, मेससि िरिेव कंस्ट् रज िन प्रा. जल. िेवघर, तथा अन् य द्वारा भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा

120 बी तथा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की

िाराएँ 7 तथा 8 के तित अजभकजथत रूप से दकए गए िंडनीय अपराि(िों), जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 02.06.2022 को

सीबीआई मामला आरसी0242022ए0003 ििि दकया गया िै, का अन् वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे

अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना (दिनांक 02.06.2022 से, कायोत् तर प्रभाव से) के

सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/83/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2105

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 1021.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.10/C.B.I.-408/2022-2174 dated 02.06.2022, Home, Prison and

Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 02.06.2022) to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into

the offence(s) punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and sections 7 and 8 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by

Shri Abhay Kumar, GM (Project) and Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Dy.GM (Project) of Rail India Technical and Economic

Service Ltd., Ranchi, Shri Avtar Singh, Owner of M/s Hardev Construction Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sashi, an employee of M/s

Hardev Construction Pvt. Ltd., Deoghar and others, based on which a CBI Case RC0242022A0003 has been

registered on 02.06.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such

offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same

facts.

[F. No. 228/83/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1022.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि संख्या सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 204/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 14.03.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

श्री आलोक ठेंगड़ी, सेंरल िीएसटी एवं सीई, िीएसटी भवन, सेजटर-17, खांिेश्वर, न्यू पनवेल, आयुि, सीिीएसटी एवं

सीई के अिीनस्ट्थ, रायगढ़, न्यू पनवेल, रायगढ़ के जवरुद्ध श्री ़ििीि हुसैनजमया सुबेिार, माजलक, मैससि सुबेिार

एंटरप्राइिेि, आवास सं. 654, तलोिा पाँचनंि, वीटीसी-तलोिा मिकूर, जिला-रायगढ़ द्वारा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िंडनीय अपराि

(िों) के संबंि में दिनांक 11.03.2022 को ििि करायी गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 15.03.2022 को

सीबीआई मामला आरसी0262022ए0007 ििि दकया गया िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों)

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से, दिनांक 15.03.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/87/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 1022.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1622/C.R. 204/Pol-2 dated 14.03.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex

post facto w.e.f. 15.03.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 11.03.2022 lodged by Shri Zahid Husainmiya Subedar, Proprietor of M/s Subedar Enterprises, House

No.654, Taloja Pachnand, VTC-Taloja Majkur, Distt.- Raigarh, against Shri Alok Thengdi of Central GST and CE,

GST Bhawan, Sector-17, Khnadeshwar, New Panvel, Under Commissioner CGST & CE, Raigad, New Panvel,

Raigad, punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of

2018), based on which a CBI Case RC0262022A0007 has been registered on 15.03.2022 and any attempt, abetment

and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/87/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1023.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट् थान राज् य सरकार, गृि (गृ.-v)

जवभाग, ियपुर की अजिसूचना सं. एफ.19(70)िोम-5/2022 दिनांक 20.07.2022 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत से

अनुजचत लाभ प्राप्त करने के जलए श्री जवनोि कुमार मीना, अस्ट् थायी कमिचारी, रक्षा लेखा प्रिान जनयंत्रक का कायािलय,

िजक्षण पजिमी कमान, ियपुर में कायिरत, अज्ञात लोक सेवकगण, रक्षा लेखा प्रिान जनयंत्रक का कायािलय, िजक्षण पजिमी

कमान, ियपुर तथा अन् य के जवरूद्ध भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत भ्रष् टाचार

जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (वषि 2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िाराएं 7ए तथा 8 के

तित िण्डनीय अपरािों, के.अ.ब् यूरो, भ्र.जन.िाखा, ियपुर में ििि एसआईिेएआई2021ए0008 से उत् पन् न अपराि(िों) का

अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी

स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त रािस्ट् थान राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/88/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 1023.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No.F.19(70)Home-5/2022 dated 20.07.2022, Home (Gr.-V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s) punishable under section 120B of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) r/w sections 7A and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of

1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018), arising out of SIJAI2021A0008 registered at CBI, ACB, Jaipur against Shri

Vinod Kumar Meena, Temporary Staff, working in the office of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, South

Western Command, Jaipur, unknown public servants O/o Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, South Western

Command, Jaipur and others for undue advantage and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/88/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1024.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 108/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 18.02.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से

श्री कौिल दकिोर, सवेयर, यूनाइटेड इंजडया इंश्योरेंस कंपनी जल., ठाणे, मिाराष्ट्र के जवरूद्ध, श्री लजलत नारायण टोडी,

जनवासी 1702, ईगलटन, 1 जिरानंिनी पाकि, िी बी रोड, ठाणे (पजिम), मिाराष्ट्र द्वारा दिनांक 14.02.2022 को

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (वषि 2018 में यथासंिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित ििि कराई गई

जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 18.02.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला, आरसी 0262022ए0006 ििि की गई िै,

से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा

दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/89/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 1024.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2107

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1622/C.R. 108/Pol-2 dated 18.02.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex

post facto w.e.f. 18.02.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 14.02.2022 lodged by Shri Lalit Narayan Todi, R/o 1702, Eagleton, 1 Hiranandani Park, G B Road,

Thane(West), Maharashtra against Shri Kaushal Kishore, Surveyor, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Thane,

Maharashtra under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended in 2018), based on

which a CBI Case RC0262022A0006 has been registered on 18.02.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts

[F. No. 228/89/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1025.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1621/सीआर677/पोल-2, दिनांक 27.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री िेबराि

बेग, उप मिा प्रबंिक, यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया, स्ट् रेस्ट् ड एसेट्स मैंनेिमैंट ब्ांच, 104, भारत िाऊस, ग्राउंड फ्लोर, मुंबई

समाचार मागि, फोटि, मुम्बई द्वारा यूजनयन बैंक ऑफ इंजडया तथा सात अन्य कंसोर्टियम बैंकों को सिोषपूणि िाजन पहुँचाने से

संबंजित (1)मैंससि जसदिम फेरो एल्लॉय़ि जलजमटेड, इसके जनिेिकों नामत: (2) श्री कमलेि मनोिर कानूनगो, (3) श्री

िीरालाल नागराि कानूनगो, (4) श्री जितेंरे चंपालाल कानूनगो, (5) श्री जवजनिा मिेंर िैन, (6) श्री अनीस अिमि अब्िुल

राजिि जसद्दकी तथा (7) जनजतन िांजतलाल िैन मुरुगन, इसके प्रोमोटरो, अज्ञात लोक सेवकों तथा अन्य के जवरुद्ध दिनांक

10.08.2021 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा

420,467, 468, तथा 471 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम,

1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जवजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(डी)

के तित िंडनीय अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा

िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/90/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 26th September, 2022

S.O. 1025.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1621/CR 677/POL-2 dated 27.04.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 10.08.2021 lodged

by Shri Debraj Bag, Dy. General Manager, Union Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch, 104, Bharat

House, Ground Floor, Mumbai Samachar Marg, Fort, Mumbai against (1) M/s Sikkim Ferro Alloys Ltd., its Directors

namely (2) Shri Kamlesh Manohar Kanungo, (3) Shri Hiralal Nagraj Kanungo, (4) Shri Jitendra Champalal Kanungo,

(5) Shri Vinisha Mahendra Jain, (6) Shri Anis Ahmed Abdul Rashid Siddiqui and (7) Shri Nitin Shantilal Jain

Murugan, its promoters, unknown public servants and others for causing wrongful loss to the Union Bank of India

and seven other consortium member Banks, punishable under section 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49

of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/90/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1026.—केन्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 6 के साथ पठठत िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज्य सरकार के गृि

जवभाग एवं न्याय, िोम-4 िाखा के दिनांक 10.03.2022 के आिेि संख्या- 07/93/2021-1एच4 (3एच4)/1486 के

माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से श्री िे.सी. िमाि, उप-़िोनल सस्त्र प्रमुख, िोनल सस्त्र सेंटर, लुजियाना द्वारा (1) मैससि बी डी

एच एंटरप्राईिेि(इंजडया),(2) मैससि ईजम्पठरएल र्फेजब्जस (प्रा.) जल., (3) मैससि ब्ोस एंटरटेंनमेट िॉप्पी प्रा. जल., (4) श्री

सुिील कुमार गोयल, (5) श्रीमती दकरण गोयल, (6) श्री जमतुल गोयल, (7) श्री मेहुल गोयल, सभी जिला लुजियाना के (8)

अज्ञात लोक सेवकों एवं अन्य,के जवरूद्ध िोखािड़ी, आपराजिक न्यास भंग, एवं सरकारी पि का िुरूपयोग कर पंिाब

नेिनल बैंक को लगभग 38.11 करोड़ रूपये की सिोषपूणि िाजन काठरत करने के सम्बन्ि में दिनांक 31.05.2021 को ििि

कराई गई जिकायत से सम्बजन्ित अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि (अपरािों) से िुड़े या उससे सम्बद्ध दकसी

िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडयन्त्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य

अपराि के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त पंिाब राज्य पर

करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/91/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 1026.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.07/93/2021-1H4(3H4)/1486 dated 10.03.2022, Home 4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 31.05.2021 lodged by Shri J.C. Sharma, Dy. Zonal SASTRA Head at Zonal SASTRA Centre,

Ludhiana against (1) M/s B D H Enterprises (India), (2) M/s Imperial Fabrics (P) Ltd., (3) M/s Bros Entertainment

Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., (4) Shri Sushil Kumar Goel, (5) Smt. Kiran Goel, (6) Shri Mitul Goel, (7) Shri Mehul Goel, all of

Ludhiana (8) unknown public servants and others, pertaining to cheating, criminal breach of trust, abuse of official

position and causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 38.11 crores to the Punjab National Bank and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/91/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जसतम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1027.—केन्र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 6 के साथ पठठत िारा 5 की उप िारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज्य सरकार के गृि एवं

न्याय जवभाग, िोम-4 िाखा के आिेि संख्या- 08/06/2022–1एच4 (3एच4)/1491, दिनांक 10.03.2022 के माध्यम से

िारी सम्मजत से श्री जनतेि िमाि, मुख्य प्रबंिक, पंिाब नेिनल बैंक, ़िोनल सस्त्रा सेंटर, लुजियाना द्वारा (1) मैससि जलठटल

बी इंटरनेिनल प्रा. जल. (2) श्रीमती परनवंिर कौर कपूर, (3) श्री िि़िािा नसंि कपूर, (4) श्रीमती सरबप्रीत कौर, (5)

श्री िगिीत नसंि कपूर, (6) श्री रािा नसंि कपूर,(7) मैससि कश्मीर एजपअठरस एजसपोटि प्रा. जल. एवं (8) मैससि जलठटल बी

इम्पेजस प्रा. जल. सभी जिला लुजियाना के एवं अज्ञात लोक सेवकों के जवरूद्ध िोखािड़ी, आपराजिक न्यास भंग, सरकारी

पि का िुरूपयोग करके पंिाब नेिनल बैंक को लगभग 4.97 करोड़ रूपये की सिोष िाजन काठरत करने के सम्बन्ि में

दिनांक 28.09.2021 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत से सम्बजन्ित अपराि (अपरािों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि

(अपरािों) से िुड़े या उससे सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडयन्त्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए

या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त पंिाब राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/92/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2109

New Delhi, the 27th September, 2022

S.O. 1027.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.08/06/2022-1H4(3H4)/1491 dated 10.03.2022, Home 4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 28.09.2021 lodged by Shri Nitesh Sharma, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal SASTRA

Centre, Ludhiana, against (1) M/s Little Bee International Pvt. Ltd., (2) Smt. Parvinder Kaur Kapoor, (3) Shri

Shahzada Singh Kapoor, (4) Smt. Sarabpreet Kaur, (5) Shri Jagjit Singh Kapoor, (6)Shri Raja Singh Kapoor, (7) M/s

Kashmir Apiaries Exports Pvt. Ltd., and (8) M/s Little Bee Impex Pvt. Ltd., all of Distt. Ludhiana and unknown

public servants pertaining to cheating, criminal breach of trust, abuse of official position and causing wrongful loss of

approx. Rs. 4.97 crores to the Punjab National Bank and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in

connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/92/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 6 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1028.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 32/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 10.01.2022 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत से श्री

अमर खड़े, भारतीय स्ट् टेट बैंक, गृि ऋण जवभाग, कैम् प िाखा, अमरावती तथा श्री जनजखल, आईसीआईसीआई बैंक, गाडगे

नगर िाखा, अमरावती के जवरूद्घ श्री राहुल िुगािास वाघमारे, पुत्र श्री िुगािास वाघमारे, वास्ट्ते श्री िेवेन् र बोन् डे, गिानन

नगर, अमरावती तथा स्ट् थायी जनवासी प्राजिक नगर, िािपुर, मंगरुलजपर, जिला-वाजिम द्वारा भ्रष् टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 तथा भारतीय िंड संजिता,

1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी के तित िंडनीय अपराि से संबंजित दिनांक 06.01.2022 को ििि कराई गई

जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 14.01.2022 को सीबीआई मामला, आरसी0282022ए0001 ििि दकया गया िै, से

उत् पन् न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा

दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 14.01.2022 से, कायोत् तर

प्रभाव से) समस्ट् त मिाराष् र राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/95/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 6th October, 2022

S.O. 1028.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1622/C.R. 32/Pol-2 dated 10.01.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex

post facto w.e.f. 14.01.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 06.01.2022 lodged by Shri Rahul Durgadas Waghmare, S/o Sh. Durgadas Waghmare, C/o Shri

Devendra Bonde, Gajanan Nagar, Amravati and permanent resident of Prashik Nagar, Shahpur, Mangrulpir, Distt-

Washim against Shri Amar Khade, State Bank of India, Home Loan Department, Camp Branch, Amravati and Shri

Nikhil, ICICI Bank, Gadge Nagar Branch, Amravati punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860),

based on which a CBI Case RC0282022A0001 has been registered on 14.01.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/95/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1029.—केन्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मध्य प्रिेि सरकार, गृि जवभाग, भोपाल

के अजिसूचना संख्या- एफ12-13/2022/बी-1/2, दिनांक 25.03.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, मैससि सियोग

माइिो फाइनेन्स जल., कापोरेट ऑदफस, ई-7/88, लाला लािपत राय सोसाईटी, अरारा कालोनी, भोपाल इनके जनिेिकों

एवं अन्य के जवरूद्ध भारतीय लघु उिोग जवकास बैंक को लगभग 15.56 करोड़ रूपये की सिोषपूणि िाजन पहुँचाने के जलए

दिनांक 10.12.2020 को श्री गुंतुरी श्रीजनवास सरमा, सिायक मिाप्रबंिक भारतीय लघु उिोग जवकास बैंक, भोपाल द्वारा

भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के सम्बन्ि में ििि

कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि (िों) से िुड़े या उससें सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास,

िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडंयन्त्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का

अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मध्य

प्रिेि राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/55/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1029.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Madhya Pradesh, issued vide Notification No. F12-13/2022/B-1/Two dated 25.03.2022, Home

Department, Bhopal, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Madhya Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint

dated 10.12.2020 lodged by Shri Gunturi Srinivas Sarma, Assistant General Manager, Small Industries Development

Bank of India, Bhopal against M/s Sahyog Microfinance Ltd., Corporate Office at E-7/88, Lala Lajpat Rai Society,

Arera Colony, Bhopal, its directors and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 15.56 crores to the Small

Industries Development Bank of India punishable under section 120B r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of

1860) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any

other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/55/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1030.—केन्र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 6 के साथ पठठत िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज्य सरकार के गृि एवं

न्याय जवभाग, गृि-4 िाखा के दिनांक 10.03.2022 के ज्ञापन संख्या- 07/97/2021–1एच4 (3एच4)/1487 के माध्यम

से िारी सम्मजत से श्री प्रिीप कुमार पंजि, उप-मिा प्रबंिक, भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक, तनावग्रस्ट्त अजस्ट्तयां प्रबंिन िाखा,

लुजियाना द्वारा मैससि जलवतार नसंि बिाि एण्ड कंपनी, इसके जिस्ट्सेिारों एवं गारंटरों श्री चरणिीत नसंि बिाि, श्री

कमलिीत नसंि बिाि तथा श्री जलवतार नसंि बिाि, सराभा नगर, सभी लुजियाना के एवं अज्ञात लोक सेवकों, के जवरूद्ध

िोखािड़ी, आपराजिक न्यास भंग, एवं सरकारी पि का िुरूपयोग कर भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक को लगभग 11.16 करोड़ रूपये

की सिोषपूणि िाजन काठरत करने के सम्बन्ि में दिनांक 31.07.2021 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत से सम्बजन्ित

अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि (अपरािों) से िुड़े या उससे सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा

षडयन्त्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस

स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त पंिाब राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/98/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1030.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.07/97/2021-1H4(3H4)/1487 dated 10.03.2022, Home 4 Branch,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2111

Department of Home Affairs and Justice hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 31.07.2021 lodged by Shri Pradeep Kumar Pandhi, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Management Branch, Ludhiana against M/s Livtar Singh Bajaj & Company, its Partners and

Guarantors Shri Charanjit Singh Bajaj, Shri Kamaljit Singh Bajaj and Shri Livtar Singh Bajaj, Sarabha Nagar, all of

Ludhiana and unknown public servants, pertaining to cheating, criminal breach of trust, abuse of official position and

causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 11.16 crores to the State Bank of India and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/98/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1031.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज् य सरकार, गृि, कारा एवं

आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग रांची, की अजिसूचना सं. 10/सीबीआई-418/2021-1496/रांची, दिनांक 19.04.2022, के

माध्यम से िारी सिमजत से, श्री कृष्ण कुमार िास, ग्रामीण डाक सेवक (िीडीएस), जसरमपुर कोजलयरी बीओ द्वारा

जगठरडीि प्रिान डाकघर, जगठरडीि मण्डल, जगठरडीि (झारखंड) के अिीन जगठरडीि एसओ के खाते में अजभकजथत तौर पर

अपराि(िों) काठरत कर अपनी आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों से गैरनुपाजतक सम्पजत अथवा आर्थिक संसािन अर्िित करने के संबंि में

िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(ई) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 के संिोिन पूवि) तथा वतिमान सिृि

भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 का अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 13(2)

सपठठत िारा 13(1) (बी) के तित काठरत अजभकजथत अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा इससे िुड़े या इससे संबद्ध दकसी

समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/105/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1031.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No. 10/C.B.I.-418/2021-1496/Ranchi dated 19.04.2022, Home,

Prison and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under

section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (e) (before amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and presently

corresponding section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended

by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by Shri Krishna Kumar Das, Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS),

Serampur Colliery BO in A/c with Giridih Town SO, under Giridih Head Post Office, Giridih Division, Giridih

(Jharkhand) pertaining to be in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources

of income and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for

any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/105/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1032.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर. 231/ पीओएल-2, दिनांक 24.03.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से श्री

एन.पी. रोड़गे, मिाप्रबंिक (ठरटेल सेल् स) तथा श्री मनीष नांिले, मुख् य प्रबंिक (ठरटेल सेल् स), इंजडयन ऑयल कॉपोरेिन

जलजमटेड, नागपुर के जवरूद्ध, श्री आकाि अिोक चौिरी, माजलक, मेससि साई सिारा सवो, केएसके, थाना रोड, गोरेगांव,

2112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

गोंजडया द्वारा दिनांक 22.03.2022 को भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120 बी तथा भ्रष् टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित ििि कराई गई

जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 24.03.2022 को एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी0282022ए0006 ििि दकया गया

िै, से उत् पन् न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा

दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत् तर प्रभाव से दिनांक

24.03.2022 से) समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/104/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1032.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1622/C.R. 231/POL-2 dated 24.03.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex

post facto w.e.f. 24.03.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the

complaint dated 22.03.2022 lodged by Shri Akash Ashok Choudhary, Proprietor of M/s Sai Sahara Servo, KSK,

Thana Road, Goregaon, Gondia, based on which a CBI Case RC0282022A0006 has been registered on 24.03.2022

u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)

(as amended by Act 16 of 2018) against Shri N.P. Rodge, General Manager (Retail Sales) and Shri Manish Nandle,

Chief Manager (Retail Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Nagpur and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy,

in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/104/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1033.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

मुंबई के आिेि सं. सीबीआई 1622/सीआर 23ए/पीओएल-2, दिनांक 18 फरवरी, 2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

व्यजियों के एक नसंजडकेट द्वारा िवािरलाल नेिरू कस्ट्टम िाउस में तत्कालीन रूप से तैनात भारतीय सीमा िुल्क के 18

अजिकाठरयों के साथ जमलकर षड्यंत्र कर िोखािड़ी से कर वापसी की राजि का अनुजचत लाभ उठा कर रािकोष को

लगभग रु. 10 करोड़ से अजिक की राजि की सिोष िाजन पहुँचाने के संबंि में उपायुि (सीआईयू), सीमा िुल्क के आयुि

का कायािलय-सामान्य, िवािरलाल नेिरू कस्ट्टम िाउस, न्िवा िेवा, टाल उरन, जिला रायगढ़ मुंबई द्वारा दिनांक

21.05.2019 को ििि करायी गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे

समस्ट्त मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/103/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1033.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No. CBI 1622/CR 23A/POL-2 dated 18th February, 2022 of Home

Department, Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) relating to fraudulent availment

of duty drawback by a syndicate of persons in conspiracy with 18 officers of Indian Customs, then posted at

Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House and thereby causing wrongful loss to exchequer of more than Rs.10 crores

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2113

pertaining to the complaint dated 21.05.2019 lodged by the Deputy Commissioner (CIU), Office of the Commissioner

of Customs General, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Tal. Uran, District Raigad and any attempt,

abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/103/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1034.—केन्र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

आिेि सं.- सीबीआई 1622/सी.आर.-659/पीओएल–2, दिनांक 05.08.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, श्री

अजमतवा ित्ता, सिायक जनिेिक, राज्य कमिचारी बीमा जनगम, मुंबई एवं अन्य अज्ञात व्यजियों के जवरूद्ध श्री जितेि िेसाई,

वठरष्ठ उपाध्यक्ष एवं अजिकृत िस्ट्ताक्षरकताि, मेससि प्रोपटी गाडिस जसजयूठरटी सर्विजसि प्रा. जल., मुंबई द्वारा दिनांक

04.08.2022 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 05.08.2022 को भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम,

1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 एवं भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

(1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी के तित एक सीबीआई मामला आरसी 0602022एस0003/सीबीआई/एसटीबी/मुंबई

ििि दकया गया िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबंद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा

उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िी तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस

स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 05.08.2022 से) समस्ट्त

मिाराष्ट्र राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/102/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1034.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 1622/C.R. 659/POL-2 dated 05.08.2022, Home Department,

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

(ex post facto w.e.f. 05.08.2022) to the whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of

the complaint dated 04.08.2022 lodged by Shri Hitesh Desai, Senior Vice President and authorized signatory of M/s.

Property Guards Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, based on which a CBI Case RC 06 020 22S0003 /CBI/STB

/Mumbai has been registered on 05.08.2022 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)

(as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) against Shri Amitava

Dutta, Assistant Director, Employee’s State Insurance Corporation, Mumbai and other unknown persons and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/102/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1035.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज् य सरकार, गृि 4 जवभाग,

गृि एवं न्याय जवभाग के ज्ञापन सं.07/95/2021-1एच4(3एच4)/4655, दिनांक 03.08.2022 के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से, श्री राहुल ििवाल, पुत्र श्री िरबंस लाल, जनवासी, मकान सं. 684, गली सं. 7, गुरु नानक पुरा पजिम, िलंिर,

ईमेल-आईडी rahuldadwal26@gmail.com एवं मोबाइल नंबर +918054301925 के उपयोगकताि द्वारा सोिल

मीजडया प्लेटफॉमि डीएल.फ्री.एफआर के माध्यम से इलेजरॉजनक स्ट्वरूप में यौन कृत्य में बच्चों को जचजत्रत करती हुई अश्लील

सामग्री का जवज्ञापन/प्रकािन/प्रसारण करने के संबंि में सूचना प्रौद्योजगकी अजिजनयम, 2000 (2000 का 21) की िारा

2114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

67बी के अंतगित कजथत तौर पर दकए गए अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

समस्ट्त पंिाब राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/101/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1035.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.07/95/2021-1H4(3H4)/4655 dated 03.08.2022, Home 4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Punjab for investigation into the offence(s) under section 67B of

the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) alleged to have been committed by Shri Rahul Dadwal, S/o Shri

Harbans Lal, R/o H. No. 684, Gali No. 7, Guru Nanak Pura West, Jalandhar user of email-id rahuldadwal

[email protected] and mobile number +918054301925 pertaining to advertisement/publishing/transmitting of obscene

material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form by using social medical platform dl.free.fr and

any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/101/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1036.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज् य सरकार, गृि, कारागार

एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग रांची की अजिसूचना सं. 10/सीबीआई/-419/2021-1497/रांची, दिनांक 19.04.2022, के

माध्यम से िारी सिमजत से, मो. अल्ताफ, सिायक डाकपाल (एसबी काउंटर), (जसतंबर, 2019 से जनलंजबत) प्रिान

डाकघर, जगठरडीि (झारखंड) द्वारा अपनी आय के ज्ञात स्त्रोतों से गैरनुपाजतक सम्पजत्त अथवा आर्थिक संसािन अर्िित करने

के संबंि में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (2018 का अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की

िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1)(ई) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में संिोिन पूवि) एवं वतिमान में सिृि िारा

13(2) सपठठत िारा 13(1) (बी) के तित काठरत अजभकजथत अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या

जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/99/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1036.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.10/C.B.I.-419/2021-1497/Ranchi dated 19.04.2022, Home,

Prison and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under

section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (e) (before amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and presently

corresponding section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended

by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by Md. Altaf, Assistant Post Master (SB Counter) (under

suspension w.e.f. September, 2019), Head Post Office, Giridih (Jharkhand) pertaining to be in possession of

pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts..

[F. No. 228/99/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2115

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1037.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पंिाब राज्य सरकार, गृि-4 िाखा, गृि

एवं न्याय जवभाग, चंडीगढ़ के ज्ञापन सं.07/57/2021-1एच4(3एच4)/1951, दिनांक 11.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी

सम्मजत से, श्री बलिीत नसंि, उप-डाकपाल, डाक घर, सािनेवाल, जिला लुजियाना के जवरूद्ध भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित दिनांक 08.04.2022 को ििि जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक

12.04.2022 को सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी0052022ए0013 ििि दकया गया िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण

तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी द्ष्पष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में

की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार (कायोत्तर प्रभाव से दिनांक 12.04.2022 से) समस्ट्त पंिाब राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/97/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1037.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Punjab, issued vide Memo No.07/57/2021-1H4(3H4)/1951 dated 11.04.2022, Home-4 Branch,

Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Chandigarh, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment (ex-post facto w.e.f. 12.04.2022) to the whole State of Punjab for investigation

into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 08.04.2022 against Shri Baljit Singh, Sub-Post Master, Post

Office, Sahnewal, District Ludhiana under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) based on which a CBI

Case No. RC0052022A0013 has been registered on 12.04.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in

relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/97/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1038.—केन्र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

आिेि संख्या- सीबीआई 2021/सीआर-191/पीओएल–2, दिनांक 8.04.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, भारतीय

राष्ट्रीय रािमागि प्राजिकरण के कार्मिकों, प्राईवेट कंसेजसयनर मैससि पी.एस. टोल प्राईवेट जल. एवं अन्य के जवरूद्ध भारतीय

राष्ट्रीय रािमागि प्राजिकरण को 225.30 करोड़ रूपये की सिोषपूणि िाजन काठरत करने से संबंजित ठाणे के श्री प्रवीन

वाटेगाओंकर एवं पूने के श्री संिय जिरोडकर द्वारा दिनांक 22.01.2020 को भारतीय िंड संजिता (1860 का 45) की

िारा 120बी सपठठत िारा 420 और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

अजिजनयम, 1988 में दिनांक 26.07.2018 को दकए गए संिोिन से पूवि िैसा जनजित था) की िारा 13(2) सपठठत िारा

13(1) (डी) के तित िंडनीय अपरािों के संबंि में ििि कराई गई जिकायत से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे

अपराि (िों) से िुड़े या उससें सम्बद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडंयन्त्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए

[फा. सं. 228/96/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2022

S.O. 1038.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Maharashtra, issued vide Order No.CBI 2021/CR 191/POL-2 dated 08.04.2022, Home Department,

2116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mumbai, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole State of Maharashtra for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint dated 22.01.2020 lodged

by Shri Pravin Wategaonkar of Thane and Shri Sanjay Shirodkar of Pune against the officials of National Highway

Authority of India, private Concessionaire M/s. P.S. Toll Pvt. Ltd. and others for causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs.

225.30 crores to the National Highway Authority of India, punishable under section 120B r/w section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49

of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/96/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 अक्तूबर, 2022

का.आ. 1039.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए गुिरात राज्य सरकार, गृि जवभाग,

गांिीनगर की अजिसूचना सं. िीिी-143/2022/एच/एलआरवी/102022/1584, दिनांक 10.10.2022 के माध्यम से

िारी सम्मजत से, अिमिाबाि जसटी एसीबी थाना में भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) के तित

04.10.2022 को ििि सी.आर. सं. 12/2022 से संबंजित अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा एसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे

समस्ट्त गुिरात राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/108/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2022

S.O. 1039.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Gujarat, issued vide Notification No. GG-143/2022/H/LRV/102022/1584 dated 10.10.2022, Home

Department, Gandhinagar, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole state of Gujarat for investigation into the offence(s) relating to C.R. No. 12/2022,

registered at Ahmedabad City ACB Police Station on 04.10.2022, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49

of 1988) and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or any

other offence committed in the course of same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/108/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 नवम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1040.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जिमाचल प्रिेि राज्य सरकार, गृि

जवभाग, जिमला की अजिसूचना सं. िोम(ए)ए(9)-9/2022, दिनांक 18.05.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

जिमाचल प्रिेि पुजलस जवभाग में आरक्षक के पि पर जनयुजि के जलए दिनांक 27.03.2022 को आयोजित जलजखत परीक्षा

से पूवि प्रश्न पत्र के लीक करने एवं प्रसाठरत करने के संबंि में भारतीय िंड संजिता 1860 (1860 का 45) की िाराएँ 420

एवं 120बी के तित थाना, सीआईडी, भराड़ी, जिमला में ििि प्राथजमकी सं. 05, दिनांक 07.05.2022 एवं थाना, गग्गल,

जिला कांगड़ा में ििि प्राथजमकी सं. 41, दिनांक 05.05.2022, से िुड़े अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से

िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी द्ष्पष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से

क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त जिमाचल प्रिेि राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/63/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2117

New Delhi, the 1st November, 2022

S.O. 1040.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Himachal Pradesh, issued vide Notification No. Home(A)A(9)-9/2022 dated 18.05.2022, Department

of Home, Shimla, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Himachal Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) relating to FIR No.05

dated 07.05.2022 registered at Police Station, CID, Bharari, Shimla and FIR No.41 dated 05.05.2022 registered at

Police Station, Gaggal, District Kangra, under sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)

pertaining to question paper getting leaked and circulated before the written examination for recruitment to the post of

Constable in Himachal Pradesh Police Department conducted on 27.03.2022 and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/63/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 नवम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1041.—केंर सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज्य सरकार, अजिसूचना स.आ.

(एमएस.) सं. 49/2022/गृि दिनांक 15.03.2022, गृि (एम) जवभाग, जतरुवनंथपुरम [एस.आर.ओ. सं 244/2022 के रूप

में प्रकाजित] के माध्यम से िारी सिमजत से, पुजलस जिरासत में हुई श्री सुरेि की मृत्यु से संबंजित आपराजिक प्रदिया

संजिता, 1973 की िारा 174 के अंतगित अपराि िाखा (जथरुवल्लम पुजलस थाना का अपराि सं 243/2022) के अपराि

सं.39/सीबी/टीवीएम/आर/2022 से िुड़े अपरािों के अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी

अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए, दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार

समस्ट्त केरल राज्य में करती िै ।

[फा. सं. 228/65/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th November, 2022

S.O. 1041.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Kerala, issued vide Notification G.O. (Ms.) No. 49/2022/Home dated 15^thMarch, 2022, Home(M)

Department, Thiruvananthapuram [Published as S.R.O. No. 244/2022], hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of

the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Kerala for investigation into the

offence(s) relating to Crime No.39/CB/TVM/R/2022 of the Crime Branch (Crime No. 243/2022 of Thiruvallam

Police Station) under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 pertaining to death of Shri Suresh in

Police custody and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s)

and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/65/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 22 नवम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1042.—केन्र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जनम्नजलजखत अपरािों को जनर्ििष्ट करती िै जिनकी िांच दिल्ली जविेष

पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों द्वारा भी की िानी िै: -

(क) भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 462 के तित िंडनीय अपराि;

(ख) उपयुि

अपराि के िुङे अथवा संबद्ध और/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में या उन्िी तथ्यों से

उत्पन्न कोई अन्य अपराि(िों) के संबंि में कोई िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षडयंत्र।

[फा. सं. 228/85/2021-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2022

S.O. 1042.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to be investigated

by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely: -

(a) Offence punishable under section 462 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860);

(b) Any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned offence and/or

for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/85/2021-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 नवम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1043.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आंध्र प्रिेि राज्य सरकार, गृि

(एससी.ए) जवभाग की अजिसूचना सं. िी.ओ.एमएस. सं.108, दिनांक 28.09.2021 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से,

रािानगरम थाना, जिला रािमुंिरी अरबन, आंध्र प्रिेि में भारतीय िंड संजिता 1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी,

380, 420, 407, 409, 462 एवं 34 के तित ििि अपराि सं. 375/2019, दिनांक 16.08.2019 से संबंजित

जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त आंध्र प्रिेि राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/85/2021-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2022

S.O. 1043.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Andhra Pradesh issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms. No.108 dated 28.09.2021, Home (SC.A)

Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to

the whole State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) relating to Crime No. 375/2019 dated

16.08.2019, registered under sections 120B, 380, 420, 407, 409, 462 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of

1860) at Police Station Rajanagaram, District Rajahmundry Urban, Andhra Pradesh and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/85/2021-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2119

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1044.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जनम्नजलजखत अपरािों को जवजनर्ििष्ट करती िै जिनकी िाँच दिल्ली जविेष

पुजलस स्ट्थापना अथाित् के सिस्ट्यों द्वारा भी की िानी िै, नामतः:-

(क) “जवत्तीय स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 2013 (2015 की केरल अजिजनयम सं. 7) में केरल िमाकतािओं के जितों का

संरक्षण” के तित िंडनीय अपराि;

(ख) उपयुि

उजल्लजखत अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों

से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि(िों) से संबंजित दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र।

[फा. सं. 228/34/2020-एवीडी-II]

रािीव कुमार खरे, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 12th December, 2022

S.O. 1044.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to be investigated

by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely :-

(a) Offence punishable under “The Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments

Act, 2013 (Kerala Act No. 7 of 2015)”;

(b) Any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned offence(s)

and/or for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same

facts.

[F. No. 228/34/2020-AVD-II]

RAJEEV KUMAR KHARE, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1045.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

चंडीगढ़ की अजिसूचना सं. 20/01/2022-3 एचिी 1 दिनांक 18.07.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से थाना

बिघेरा, गुरूग्राम में ििि एफआईआर सं. 27 दिनांक 11.02.2022 से संबंजित, भारतीय िंड संजिता 1860 (1860 का

45) की िारा 304-ए, 34, 304, 338, 417, 420, 427, 465, 467, 468, 471 तथा 120-बी एवं िठरयाणा जवकास

और ििरी क्षेत्रों का जवजनयमन अजिजनयम,1975 (1975 का िठरयाणा अजिजनयम सं. 8) की िारा 10 तथा 12 के तित

िंडनीय अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा

[फा. सं. 228/73/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2022

S.O. 1045.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Haryana issued vide Notification No.20/01/2022-3HG1 dated 18.07.2022, Home Department,

Chandigarh, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to

the whole State of Haryana for investigation into the offence(s) under sections 304-A, 34, 304, 338, 417, 420, 427,

465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and sections 10 and 12 of the Haryana

Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (Haryana Act No. 8 of 1975) relating to FIR No. 27 dated

11.02.2022, registered at Police Station Bajghera, Gurugram and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation

to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/73/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1046.—केन् र सरकार एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 3 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए जनम्नजलजखत अपरािों को जवजनर्ििष्ट करती िै, जिनका अन्वेषण भी दिल्ली

जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों द्वारा दकया िाना िै, नामतः:-

(क) िठरयाणा जवकास एवं ििरी क्षेत्र जवजनयमन अजिजनयम, 1975 (1975 का िठरयाणा अजिजनयम सं. 8) के अिीन

िंडनीय अपराि;

(ख) ऊपर उजल्लजखत अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा

उसी संव्यविार में दकए गए या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न कोई अन्य अपराि।

[फा. सं. 228/73/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2022

S.O. 1046.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,

1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government hereby specifies the following offences which are also to be investigated

by the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, namely :-

(a) Offence punishable under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (Haryana

Act No. 8 of 1975);

(b) Any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with above mentioned offence(s)

and/or for any other offence(s) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same

facts.

[F. No. 228/73/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2022

का.आ. 1047.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मजणपुर राज् य सरकार, गृि जवभाग,

इम्फाल द्वारा अजनयजमत िमा योिनाओं पर प्रजतबंि, अजिजनयम, 2019 (2019 का 21) की िारा 30 के तित पत्र संख्या

सं. 2/8(1)/2019-एच(एमएएन), दिनांक 22.01.2022 के माध्यम से दिए गए जनिेि पर सलाई ग्रुप ऑफ कंपनी़ि (बंबई

साहूकार अजिजनयम, 1946 के अंतगित पंिीकृत) द्वारा 3 प्रजतित प्रजत माि ब्याि का भुगतान करने का वािा करके

जनवेिकों से अवैि रूप से िमाराजि का संग्रिण करने, िो दक एक अवैि पों़िी योिना/िन पठरचालन योिना िै तथा

सलाई ग्रुप द्वारा भारत से बािर टोदकयो, मलेजिया, िुबई साथ िी भारत में जवजभन्न स्ट्थानों िैसें दिल्ली, कोलकत्ता में

पंिीकृत कई िेल कम्पजनयों के माध्यम से सलाई ग्रुप के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंि जनिेिक व जनिेिकों द्वारा बड़ी मात्रा में िनराजि

का गवन करने के संबंि में दकए गए अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण करने और इससे िुड़े या उससे संबंद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास,

अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त मजणपुर

राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/22/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2022

S.O. 1047.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government on the reference made by the

State Government of Manipur u/s 30 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (21 of 2019) vide

letter No. 2/8(1)/2019-H(MAN) dated 22.01.2022, Home Department, Imphal, hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Manipur for

investigation into the offence(s) pertaining to illegal collection of deposits by Salai Group of Companies (registered

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2121

under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946) from the investors with a promise to pay 3% interest per month,

which is an illegal Ponzi Scheme/Money Circulation Scheme and taking away of the substantial amount of money

by the Chairman & Managing Director and Directors of Salai Group through several Shell companies registered by

Salai Group outside India in Tokyo, Malaysia, Dubai and also at various places in India like Delhi, Kolkata, and any

attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence

committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/22/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 1048.—केन् र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज् य सरकार, गृि, कारागार

एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची की अजिसूचना ज्ञापन सं.-10/सी.बी.आई.-410/2020-4473/रांची, दिनांक

10.11.2022, के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, झारखंड के पूवी नसंिभूम जिले के क्षेत्राजिकार में अवजस्ट्थत निंिुस्ट्तान कॉपर

जल. के सुिाि माईंस का खनन और रख-रखाव का कायि को अवाडि करने के संबंि में (1) श्री के.डी. िीवान, तत्कालीन अध्यक्ष

सि प्रबंि जनिेिक, निंिुस्ट्तान कॉपर जल. (एचसीएल), (2) श्री अजभिीत घोष, तत्कालीन जनिेिक (खनन), एचसीएल (3)

मेससि इंजडयन ठरसोसि जल. और (4) निंिुस्ट्तान कॉपर जल. के अज्ञात अजिकाठरयों/कमिचाठरयों द्वारा भारतीय िण्ड संजिता,

1860 (1860 का 45) की िारा 120बी और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) (भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण

13(1)(डी) के तित दकए गए अजभकजथत अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण और इससे िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास,

िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस

[फा. सं. 228/55/2021-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2023

S.O. 1048.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification Memo No.-10/C.B.I.-410/2020-4473/Ranchi dated 10.11.2022,

Home, Prisons and Disaster Management Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under

section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

w.e.f. 26.07.2018) alleged to have been committed by (1) Shri K.D. Diwan, the then Chairman-cum-Managing

Director, Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL), (2) Shri Abhijit Ghosh, the then Director (Mining), HCL, (3) M/s Indian

Resource Ltd. and (4) Unknown officers/officials of Hindustan Copper Limited pertaining to awarded work of mining

and maintenance of Surda Mines of Hindustan Copper Ltd. falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the District

East Singhbhum of Jharkhand, and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such

offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same

facts.

[F. No. 228/55/2021-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 5 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 1049.— केन्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजज तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री राि कुमार भास्ट्कर ठाकरे, अजिवज ता को, दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन, (केंरीय

अन्वेषण ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् थत सीबीआई मामला सं. आरसी सं. 223 2021 ए 0003 में मुंबई के जवजभन्न न्यायालयों में

अजभयोिन का संचालन करने के जलए, जिसके अंतगित तत्समय प्रवृत्त दकसी जवजि द्वारा स्ट्थाजपत दकसी अपील या पुनरीक्षण

2122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

न्यायालय या भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय के समक्ष उि मामले से उद्ष्पभूत दकसी अपील, पुनरीक्षण या अन्य कायिवािी भी

िै, पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से तीन वषि की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूवितर िो, जविेष

लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में जनयुज त करती िै।

[फा. सं. 225/17/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2023

S.O. 1049.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, Advocate as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of CBI case RC No. 223 2021 A 0003, instituted by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation), in various courts in Mumbai including appeal,

revision or other proceeding arising out of the said case before any Appellate or Revision Court established under any

law for the time being in force or before Supreme Court of India for a period of three years from the date of

assumption of charge or till disposal of the case, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 225/17/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 1050.— केंरीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजज तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री मौ. लतीफुर रिमान अंसारी, अजिविा को जविेष न्यायािीि, केंरीय अन् वेषण

ब् यूरो-II, पटना के समक्ष लंजबत दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन, (केंरीय अन् वेषण ब् यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट्थत श्रीिन घोटाले से

संबंजित नीचे िी गई सारणी में यथा उजल्लजखत मामलों के अजभयोिन का संचालन करने िेतु पि ग्रिण करने की तारीख से

तीन वषि की अवजि के जलए या मामले के जनपटारा िो िाने तक, िो भी पूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक के रूप में

जनयुज त करती िै:--

सारणी

ि. सं.

सीबीआई मामला आरसी संख्या

(1)

(2)

आरसी.12(ए)/2018 - पीएटी;

आरसी.13(ए)/2018 - पीएटी;

आरसी.14(ए)/2018 - पीएटी;

आरसी.15(ए)/2018 - पीएटी;

आरसी.16(ए)/2018 - पीएटी;

आरसी.17(ए)/2018 - पीएटी;

आरसी.18(ए)/2018 - पीएटी;

आरसी.10(ए)/2021 - पीएटी; (अन् वेषण)

आरसी.5(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

10.

आरसी.6(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

11.

आरसी.7(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

12.

आरसी.8(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2123

13.

आरसी.9(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

14.

आरसी.10(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

15.

आरसी.11(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

16.

आरसी.12(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

17.

आरसी.13(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

18.

आरसी.14(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

19.

आरसी.15(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

20.

आरसी.16(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

21.

आरसी.17(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

22.

आरसी.18(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली.

23.

आरसी.19(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

24.

आरसी.20(ए)/2017-एसीयू-V,एसी-II, नई दिल्ली

[फा. सं. 225/13/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 13th January, 2023

S.O. 1050.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Md. Latifur Rahman Ansari, Advocate, as

Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution of the cases relating to Srijan Scam instituted by the Delhi

Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) as mentioned in the Table below pending before

Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation-II, Patna, for a period of three years from the date of the assumption of

charge or till disposal of the cases, whichever is earlier : -

TABLE

S. No.

CBI Case RC. No.

(1)

(2)

RC.12(A)/2018-Pat.,

RC.13(A)/2018-Pat.,

RC.14(A)/2018-Pat.,

RC.15(A)/2018-Pat.,

RC.16(A)/2018-Pat.,

RC.17(A)/2018-Pat.,

RC.18(A)/2018-Pat.,

RC.10(A)/2021-Pat. (Investigation)

RC.5(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

10.

RC.6(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

11.

RC.7(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

12.

RC.8(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

13.

RC.9(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

14.

RC.10(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

15.

RC.11(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

16.

RC.12(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

17.

RC.13(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

18.

RC.14(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

2124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19.

RC.15(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

20.

RC.16(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

21.

RC.17(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

22.

RC.18(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

23.

RC.19(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

24.

RC.20(A)/2017-ACU-V, AC-II, New Delhi.

[F. No. 225/13/2022-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 िनवरी, 2023

का.आ. 1051.—केन् र सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

(एससी.ए) जवभाग की अजिसूचना सं. िी.ओ.एमएस.सं. 42, दिनांक 28.04.2021 के माध् यम से िारी सम्मजत से

कडापा I टाउन, कडापा जिला, आंध्र प्रिेि में भारतीय िण्ड संजिता, 1860 (1860 का 45) की िाराएं 403, 406, 409

और 420 सपठठत िारा 34 के तित ििि मामला अपराि सं. 137/2016, दिनांक 05.05.2016 से संबंजित अपराि(िों)

का अन्वेषण करने के जलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा एवं/अथवा षड्यंत्र

जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट् त आंध्र प्रिेि राज् य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/48/2021-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2023

S.O. 1051.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Andhra Pradesh issued vide Notification No. G.O.Ms. No. 42 dated 28.04.2021, Home (SC.A)

Department, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to

the whole State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) relating to Case Crime No. 137/2016 dated

05.05.2016, registered under sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of

1860) at Police Station Kadapa I Town, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh and any attempt, abetment and/or

conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course

of same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/48/2021-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी, 2023

का.आ. 1052.—केंर सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उपिारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उत्तर प्रिेि राज्य सरकार आिेि सं.34

िी.आई./VI-पी-4-22-1(64) बी/2020 दिनांक 04.05.2022, गृि जवभाग, लखनऊ के माध्यम से िारी सिमजत से,

1994-95 से 2002-03 की अवजि के िौरान भारत सरकार की अनुज्ञा के जबना लगभग 2,85,34,846/- रूपये का जविेिी

अजभिाय प्राप्त करने और जविेिी अजभिाय (जवजनयमन) अजिजनयम, 1976 के उल्लंघन में उसका जवचलन करने के जलए,

इंजडयन जडवलपमेंट ग्रुप (इंजडया चैप्टर), पोस्ट्ट बॉजस सं 311, गांिी भवन, लखनऊ द्वारा कजथत रूप से दकए गए अपरािों

के संबंि में दिनांक 29.02.2012 के सं. II/21022/58/(8)/2011/एफसी(एमयू) के माध्यम से श्री िे. के. चट्टोपाध्याय,

उप सजचव, गृि मंत्रालय, एफसीआरए जवभाग द्वारा भेिी गयी जिकायत से संबंजित अपरािों के अन्वेषण करने तथा ऐसे

या उन्िीं तथ्यों से उत्पन्न दकसी अन्य अपराि का अन्वेषण करने के जलए, दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थापना के सिस्ट्यों की

िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त उत्तर प्रिेि राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/07/2021-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2125

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2023

S.O. 1052.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Uttar Pradesh issued vide Order No.34 G.I./VI-P-4-22-1(64)B/2020 dated 04.05.2022, Home

Department, Lucknow, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole State of Uttar Pradesh for investigation into the offence(s) arising out of the complaint

sent by Shri J. K. Chattopadhyay, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, FCRA Division, Monitoring Unit,

New Delhi vide No. II/21022/58/(8)/2011/FC(MU) dated 29.02.2012 alleged to have been committed by the Indian

Development Group (India Chapter), Post Box No. 311, Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow for receiving Foreign

Contribution of approx. Rs. 2,85,34,846/- without trail permission of the Government of India during the period from

1994-95 to 2002-03 and diversion thereof in contravention of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and

any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/07/2021-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 माचि, 2023

का.आ. 1053— केन्रीय सरकार, िंड प्रदिया संजिता, 1973 (1974 का 2) की िारा 24 की उपिारा (8) द्वारा

प्रित् त िजज तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, श्री ए. एम. जचमालकर, अजिवज ता को, दिल् ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट् थापन (केंरीय अन्वेषण

ब्यूरो) द्वारा संजस्ट् थत नीचे िी गई सारणी के स्ट् तंभ (2) और स्ट् तंभ (3) में यथा जवजनर्ििष् ट मामलों में अजभयोिन का संचालन

करने और अपील, पुनरीक्षण और तत् समय प्रवृत दकसी अन् य जवजि के द्वारा स्ट् थाजपत दकसी अपील और पुनरीक्षण न् यायालय

में इन मामलों से उद्ष्पभूत अन्य जवषयों का संचालन करने के जलए उनकी जनयुजज त की तारीख से तीन वषों की अवजि के

जलए या अगला आिेि िोने तक, िो भी पूवितर िो, जविेष लोक अजभयोिक जनयुज त करती िै: -

सारणी

िम संख्या

मामला

न् यायालय का नाम

(1)

(2)

(3)

आरसी 219 2020 ई 0004

जविेष न् यायािीि का न् यायालय, सीबीआई मामले, मुम् बई

और जविेष न् यायािीि का न् यायालय, पीएमएलए, मुम् बई

[फा. सं. 225/35/2022-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 10th March, 2023

S.O. 1053.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri A. M. Chimalker, Advocate as Special

Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution cases as specified in columns (2) and (3) in the Table below instituted

by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) and any appeal, revision and other

matters arising out of these cases in any appellate or revisional Court established by any other law for the time being

in force, for a period of three years from the date of assumptions of charges or till disposal of the cases, whichever is

earlier :-

TABLE

Serial

Number

Case

Name of Court

(1)

(2)

(3)

RC 219 2020 E 0004

Court of Special Judge CBI Cases, Mumbai and Court of Special

Judge PMLA, Mumbai.

[F. No. 225/35/2022–AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

2126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 20 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1054.—केन्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्था्पना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

सं. 10/सी.बी.आई.-402/2023-943/रांची, दिनांक 28.02.2023, गृि, कारागार एवं आपिा प्रबंिन जवभाग, रांची के

माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से, केंरीय खनन एवं ईंिन अनुसंिान संस्ट्थान, िनबाि को 139,79,97,871/- रूपये की

सिोषपूणि िाजन काठरत करने िेतु (1) डॉ. प्रिीप कुमार नसंि, तत्कालीन जनिेिक, (2) डॉ. अिोक कुमार नसंि, प्रिान

वैज्ञाजनक/िोि समूि के प्रमुख (एचओआरिी), संसािन गुणवत्ता मूल्यांकन प्रभाग, िोनों केंरीय खनन एवं ईंिन अनुसंिान

संस्ट्थान (सीआईएमएफआर), िनबाि के तथा (3) अन्य अज्ञात द्वारा प्रौद्योजगकी िस्ट्तांतरण एवं ज्ञान आिार का उपयोग

2005 और 2017 के जलए सीएसआईआर दििाजनिेिों में जनिािठरत मानिंडों का बेईमानी से उल्लंघन करके वषि 2016 से

वषि 2021 के बीच पठरयोिना िुजल्क/बौजद्धक िुल्क / मानिेय के अवैि जवतरण के संबंि में भारतीय िंड संजिता, 1860

(1860 का 45) की िारा 120 बी सपठठत िारा 420, भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) की िारा

13 (2) सपठठत िारा 13(1) (डी) (िैसा दक दिनांक 26.07.2018 से प्रभावी भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 में

दकए गए संिोिन से पिले था) और भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988 का 49) की िारा 13 (2) सपठठत िारा

13(1) (ए) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) के तित दकए गए अजभकजथत अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा

ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या उससे संबद्ध दकसी िुष्प्रयास, िुष्प्रेरणा और/अथवा षड्यंत्र एवं/अथवा उसी संव्यविार में दकए

िजियों और क्षेत्राजिकार का जवस्ट्तार समस्ट्त झारखंड राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/37/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2023

S.O. 1054.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Jharkhand, issued vide Notification No.-10/C.B.I.-402/2023-943/Ranchi dated 28.02.2023, Home,

Prisons and Disaster Management Department, Ranchi, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of

the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation into the offence(s) under

section 120B r/w section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as stood before the amendment made to the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) alleged to have been committed by (1) Dr. Pradeep Kumar Singh,

the then Director, (2) Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Chief Scientist/Head of Research Group (HORG), Resource Quality

Assessment Division, both of Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad and (3) unknown

others pertaining to illegal distribution of Project Fee/Intellectual Fee/Honorarium in between 2016 and 2021 by

dishonestly violating the laid down norms as prescribed in CSIR Guidelines for Technology Transfer and Utilization

of Knowledge base 2005 and 2017 causing wrongful loss of approx. Rs. 139,79,97,871/- to the Central Institute of

Mining and Fuel Research, Dhanbad, and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection

with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the

same facts.

[F. No. 228/37/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1055.—केन्र सरकार, एतिद्वारा दिल्ली जविेष पुजलस स्ट्थानपना अजिजनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठठत िारा 6 द्वारा प्रित्त िजियों का प्रयोग करते हुए रािस्ट्थान राज्य सरकार, गृि (गृ.-V)

जवभाग, ियपुर की अजिसूचना सं. एफ.19(20)गृि-5/2023 दिनांक 20.07.2022 के माध्यम से िारी सम्मजत से श्री ओम

प्रकाि िमाि, यातायात जनरीक्षक, बांिीकुई, उत्तर पजिम रेलवे (उ.प.रे), ियपुर (मु.) के जवरूद्घ श्री चंिन प्रकाि बुंिेल, पुत्र

श्री राम दकिोर बुंिेल, पॉइंट्समैन, अलवर िंजिन, अलवर, रािस्ट्थान द्वारा भ्रष्टाचार जनवारण अजिजनयम, 1988 (1988

का 49) (2018 के अजिजनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संिोजित) की िारा 7 के तित िंडनीय अपराि से संबंजित दिनांक

30.03.2023 को ििि कराई गई जिकायत, जिसके आिार पर दिनांक 08.05.2023 को सीबीआई मामला,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2127

आरसीिेएआई 2023ए0003 ििि दकया गया िै, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्वेषण तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से िुड़े या

जवस्ट्तार (दिनांक 08.05.2023, कायोत्तर प्रभाव से) समस्ट्त् रािस्ट्थान राज्य में करती िै।

[फा. सं. 228/33/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 20th June, 2023

S.O. 1055.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19(20)Home-5/2023 dated 04.05.2023, Home (Gr.-V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 08.05.2023) to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s)

arising out of the complaint dated 30.03.2023 lodged by Shri Chandan Prakash Bundel, S/o Shri Ram Kishore

Bundel, Pointsman, Alwar Junction, Alwar, Rajasthan against Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Traffic Inspector, Bandikui,

North Western Railway (NWR), Jaipur(HQ) under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)

(as amended by Act 16 of 2018), based on which a CBI case RCJAI2023A0003 has been registered on 08.05.2023

and any attempt, abetment and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other

offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/33/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1056.—केन्द्र सरकार, एतदद्वारा ददल्ली विशेष पुवलस स्थापना अविवनयम, 1946 (1946 का 25) की

िारा 5 की उप-िारा (1) सपठित िारा 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शवियों का प्रयोग करते हुए राजस्थान राज्य सरकार, गृह ((गृ.-V)

विभाग, जयपुर की अविसूचना सं. एफ.19(18)होम-5/2023, ददनांक 04.04.2023 के माध्यम से जारी सम्मवत से श्री

विनोद कुमार, जेई(ई एंड एम)-1, जीई जयपुर का कायाालय, एमईएस, जयपुर, श्री संतोष कुमार पांडे, एचआर मैनेजर,

मेससा ग्रैविटी फैवसवलटी मैनेंजमैंट सोल्यूशन प्रा. वल., नोयडा (यूपी) तथा अन्द्य अज्ञात के विरूद्घ श्री दीपक मेहरा, पुत्र श्री

गणेश राम मेहरा, संविदा कमाचारी, मेससा ग्रैविटी फैवसवलटी मैनेंजमैंट सोल्यूशन प्रा. वल., वमवलट्री इंजीवनयररंग सर्िासेज,

जयपुर द्वारा भारतीय दंड संवहता (1860 का 45) की िारा 120-बी तथा भ्रष्टाचार वनिारण अविवनयम, 1988 (1988

का 49) (2018 के अविवनयम 16 द्वारा यथा संशोवित) की िारा 7 के तहत दंडनीय अपराि से संबंवित ददनांक

17.03.2023 को दजा कराई गई वशकायत, वजसके आिार पर ददनांक 10.04.2023 को सीबीआई मामला

आरसीजेएआई2023ए0002 दजा दकया गया है, से उत्पन्न अपराि(िों) का अन्द्िेषण करने के वलए तथा ऐसे अपराि(िों) से

जुडे या उससे संबद्ध दकसी दुष्प्प्रयास, दुष्प्प्रेरणा एिं/अथिा षड्यंत्र एिं/अथिा उसी संव्यिहार में दकए गए या उन्द्हीं तथ्यों से

उत्पन्न दकसी अन्द्य अपराि का अन्द्िेषण करने के वलए ददल्ली विशेष पुवलस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शवियों और

क्षेत्राविकार का विस्तार (ददनांक 10.04.2023, कायोत्तर प्रभाि से) समस्त राजस्थान राज्य में करती है।

[फा. सं. 228/31/2023-एवीडी-II]

संिय कुमार चौरजसया, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2023

S.O. 1056.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Rajasthan, issued vide Notification No. F.19(18)Home-5/2023 dated 04.04.2023, Home (Gr.-V)

Department, Jaipur, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (ex post facto w.e.f. 10.04.2023) to the whole State of Rajasthan for investigation into the offence(s)

arising out of the complaint dated 17.03.2023 lodged by Shri Deepak Mehra, S/o Ganesh Ram Mehra, Contractual

Employee of M/s Gravity Facility Management Solution Pvt. Ltd. at Military Engineering Services, Jaipur against

Shri Vinod Kumar, JE(E&M)-1, O/o GE Jaipur, MES, Jaipur, Shri Santosh Kumar Pandey, HR Manager, M/s Gravity

2128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Facility Management Solution Pvt. Ltd., Noida (UP) and unknown others under section 120-B of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) (as amended by Act 16 of

2018), based on which a CBI case RCJAI2023A0002 has been registered on 10.04.2023 and any attempt, abetment

and/or conspiracy, in relation to or in connection with such offence(s) and/or for any other offence committed in the

course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/31/2023-AVD-II]

SANJAY KUMAR CHAURASIA, Under Secy.

नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 22 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1057.— केन्रीय सरकार, रािभाषा (संघ के िासकीय प्रयोिनों के जलए प्रयोग), जनयम, 1976 के

जनयम-10 के उप-जनयम (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर जवमानन मंत्रालय के अंतगित, जवमानपत् तन जनिेिक का कायािलय,

भारतीय जवमानपत् तन प्राजिकरण, जसजवल जवमानपत् तन जवकि कलां, भरटंडा, जिसमें 80 प्रजतित कार्मिकों ने निंिी का

कायिसािक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर जलया िै, को एतद्द्वारा अजिसूजचत करती िै।

[फा. सं. ई. 11014/9/2015-रा.भा.]

पीयूष श्रीवास्ट् तव, वठरष् ठ आर्थिक सलािकार एवं अपर सजचव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2023

S.O. 1057.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official

Purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby notifies the Office of the Airport Director,

Airports Authority of India, Civil Airport Virk Kalan, Bhatinda under Ministry of Civil Aviation , whereof 80% staff

have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11014/9/2015-OL]

PIYUSH SRIVASTAVA, Senior Economic Advisor & Addl. Secy.

श्रम एिं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1058.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार गुजरात अम्बुजा सीमेंट वलवमटेड, अमरेली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और भारतीय मज़दूर संघ, राजकोट

के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (ठरफरेन्द्स

न. -1005/2004) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 14.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/53/1994-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYEMENT

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2023

S.O. 1058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 1005/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to Management of Gujarat Ambuja Comments Limited, Amreli and Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Rajkot which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.06.2023.

[No. L-29012/53/1994-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2129

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th March, 2023.

Reference: (CGITA) No- 1005/2004

The Dy. Manager(Personnel),

M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.,

Ambujanagar, P.O. Kodinar,

Dist. Amreli-362720

….First Party

Shri R. H. Makadia,

C/o. Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,

‘Gayatri’, Rajputpara Main Road,

Opp. Lodhwad Police Station,

Rajkot-360 001.

….Second Party

Advocate For the First Party employer : Shri A. S. Parikh

Advocate For the Second Party workman : Shri N. H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-29012/53/94-IR(Misc.) dated 27.03.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the then Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rajkot (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule. The matter

was received by transfer on creation of this Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at Ahmedabad

in the year 2004.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. in terminating

the services of Shri R. H. Makadia is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

1. Case is listed for 10.07.2023. Both the Ld. Counsels of M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. and the Second

Party workman have appeared and submitted joint application Ex.14 to take the matter on board today as the parties to

the dispute have come from Amreli and Rajkot from far off distance and have settled the dispute out of court, the

matter is taken on board today in the interest of justice.

2. Parties submitted the memorandum of settlement dated 28.03.2023 vide Ex.15 duly signed by Shri Sunil

Kumar, Manager-HR, Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Identified by his Ld. Counsel Shri Anil Parikh and the concerned

workman Shri Ranchodbhai Harjibhai Makadiya identified by his Ld. Counsel Shri Nirdosh H. Rathod along with the

copy of cheque No. 041073 dated 24.03.2023 of Rs.100000/- (Rupees one lacs only) issued by HDFC Bank.

3. Employer’s representative Shri Sunil Kumar, HR-Manager also filed his authority letter to settle this case for

the employer at Ex.16.

4. The verification order has been passed at the back of settlement Ex.15. As the parties have arrived at

settlement according to which cheque No. 041073 dated 24.03.2023 of Rs.100000/- (Rupees one lacs only) has been

handed over by the employer to the workman as the full and final settlement of the case. The settlement is accepted.

This case is accordingly decided in terms of settlement. Settlement Ex.15 will remain part of the award. The award is

passed accordingly.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s 17(1)

of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1059.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

2130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, अहमदाबाद पंचाट (ठरफरेन्द्स

न. -1006/2004) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 14.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29012/52/1994-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2023

S.O. 1059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 1006/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to Management of Gujarat Ambuja Comments Limited, Amreli and Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Rajkot which was

received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.06.2023.

[No. L-29012/52/1994-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I,Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 28^th March, 2023.

Reference: (CGITA) No- 1006/2004

The Dy. Manager (Personnel),

M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.,

Ambujanagar, P.O. Kodinar,

Dist. Amreli-362 720

…First Party

Shri B. L. Nakum,

C/o. Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh,

‘Gayatri’, Rajputpara Main Road,

Opp. Lodhwad Police Station,

Rajkot-360 001.

….Second Party

Advocate For the First Party employer : Shri A. S. Parikh

Advocate For the Second Party workman : Shri N. H. Rathod

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order

No. L-29012/52/94-IR(Misc.) dated 27.03.1996 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rajkot (Gujarat) in respect of the matter was specified in the Schedule. The

matter was received by transfer on creation of this Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court at

Ahmedabad in the year 2004.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. in

terminating the services of Shri B. L. Nakum is justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

1. Case is listed for 10.07.2023. Both the Ld. Counsels of M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. and the Second

Party workman have appeared and submitted joint application Ex.14 to take the matter on board today as the parties to

the dispute have come from Amreli and Rajkot, far off distance and have settled the dispute out of court, the matter is

taken on board today in the interest of justice.

2. The parties have submitted the memorandum of settlement dated 28.03.2023 vide Ex.15 duly signed by

Shri Sunil Kumar, Manager-HR, Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Identified by Ld. Counsel Shri Anil Parikh and the

concerned workman Shri Bharatkumar Laxmanbhai Nakum identified by his Ld. Counsel Shri Nirdosh H. Rathod

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2131

along with the copy of cheque No. 041072 dated 24.03.2023 of Rs.100000/- (Rupees one lacs only) issued by HDFC

Bank.

3. Employer’s representative Shri Sunil Kumar, HR-Manager also filed his authority letter to settle this case for

the employer at Ex.16.

4. The verification order has been passed at the back of settlement Ex.15. As the parties have arrived at

settlement according to which cheque No. 041072 dated 24.03.2023 of Rs.100000/- (Rupees one lacs only) has been

handed over by the employer to the workman as the full and final settlement of the case. The settlement Ex.15 is

accepted. This case is decided in terms of settlement Ex.15. Which will remain part of the award. The award is passed

accordingly.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication

U/s 17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 अप्रैल, 2023

का.आ. 1060.—औद्योवगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट् ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योवगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योवगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] iqus ds iapkV (22/2015) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/86/2011-आई आर (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 10th April, 2023

S.O. 1060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 22/2015) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Pune as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their

workmen.

[No. L-12011/86/2011-IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUNE PRESIDED OVER BY SHRI K. N. GAUTAM

Reference IT NO. 22 OF 2015

Bank of Maharashtra

Lok Managal, 1501, Shivaji Nagar,

Pune 411005

….First Party

Versus

The General Secretary

Bank of Maharashtra Employees Union

C/o. Bank of Maharashtra, Lok Mangal,

1501, Shivajinagar, Pune 411005

….Second Party

AWARD

( Dated : 07.10.2022 )

This is a reference forwarded by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide order dated

24.05.2012 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of dispute between first party and second party as mentioned in the

Schedule annexed to the order of the reference for adjudication to this Tribunal.

2. After receiving the said reference, notices were issued to both parties. After filing statement of claim and

written statement by both the parties, the issues were framed on 23.8.2022. However, no evidence led by the Second

Party since then. The learned counsel for the Second Party filed purshis at Exh. U-5 dated 7.10.2022 that he is having

no instructions from the Second Party. The roznama shows that the second party failed to take any steps to lead

2132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

evidence and to proceed with the reference. It appears that the second party has lost interest. In view of this in

absence of evidence of the second party, the demands of second party cannot be adjudicated. Therefore, I have no

alternative, but to answer the reference in the negative. With this, I proceed to pass the following award :-

-: AWARD :-

The reference is answered in the negative.

No order as to costs.

The copies of this award be sent to the

appropriate authority of the Government.

K. N. GAUTAM, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 मई, 2023

का.आ. 1061.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार तारापुर परमाणु ऊिाि स्ट्टेिन, पालघर,के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और उनके कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में

जनर्ििष्ट केन्रीय सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि-श्रम न्यायालय-1 मुंबई के पंचाट (संिभि संख्या CGIT-1/18 of 2022)

को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

24.05.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/261/2022 -आई आर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 24th May, 2023

S.O. 1061.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-1/18 of 2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal

cum Labour Court - I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to Tarapur Atomic Power Station, Palghar and their Workmen, which was received along with soft copy of the award

by the Central Government on 24.05.2023.

[No. L-42011/261/2022-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1, MUMBAI

Present: Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-1/18 OF 2022

Tarapur Atomic Power Station

….1^st Party

V/s.

Their Workmen

.…2^nd Party

Presence:

For the Management No.1

: Absent

For the Union

: Absent

Mumbai dated the 11^th day of April, 2023.

AWARD

Both sides are found absent. Union fails to appear in spite of due service of notice upon it as per A.D. Card.

So, it can be presumed the union is no more interested to proceed with the case.

The Government of India, through Ministry of Labour vide order No. L-42011/261/2022 IR(DU) dated

21.07.2022 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal. “1. Whether the demand of Tarapur

Atomic Power Project-3&4 Employees Association, Palghar vide letter dated 22.04.2021 to the Management of

NPCIL, Tarapur Atomic Power Station – 3&4, Palghar for exemption of acknowledgement of IT return during

renewal of Contributory Health Services Scheme (CHSS) facility of parents/ Parents-in-law(in case of female

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2133

employees) is proper, legal and justified? If yes, to what relief is the disputant union entitled and what directions, if

any, are necessary in the matter?

2. Whther the pre-requisite of submission of acknowledgement of IT return filed for renewal of Contributory Health

Services Scheme(CHSS) facility of parents/Parents-in law(in case of female employees) is a change in service

condition under Section 9A of ID Act. 1947? If yes, whether the claim of Tarapur Atomic Power Project -3 &4

Employees Association, Palghar that the action of the management of NPCIL Tarapur Atomic Power Station-3&4

Palghar has violated item no. 8 of Section 9A of the ID Act, 1947, is proper legal and justified? If yes, to what relief

the disputant Union is entitled?

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the record or no material is there on record to decide the above issue. The

union who has raised the above dispute has failed to file its claim application supported by documents or law or

citation that employee of Tarapur Atomic Power Projects-3&4 employee enjoy special privilege under Income Tax

Act, and they are exempted to get deduction more than the prescribed slab towards medical claim or that they are

exempted from filing I.T. returns.

In fact, it appears by filing the present case, the union want its members from evading tax liability towards

medical claim.

Be that as it may, since the union has failed to pursue the dispute, and as such no dispute award is passed.

Accordingly Reference Case No. 18 of 2022 is disposed of.

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 मई, 2023

का.आ. 1062.—औद्योजगक जववाि अजिजनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्रीय

सरकार मिाप्रबंिक, िूरसंचार, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड टेलीफोन एजसचेंि, दफरोिपुर, पंिाब; मंडल अजभयंता,

िूरसंचार भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड टेलीफोन एजसचेंि, फाजिल्का, पंिाब; सब जडजविनल इंिीजनयर, ग्रुप-II,

बीएसएनएल, फाजिल्का, पंिाब; िेटीओ श्री संिय रेवाठरया, सी/ओ मिाप्रबंिक, टेलीकॉम, भारत संचार जनगम जलजमटेड

टेलीफोन एजसचेंि, दफरोिपुर, पंिाब; मेससि ए.एस. टेलीमैठटजस प्रा. जलजमटेड जिला केंर िनकपुरी, नई दिल्ली, के

प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध जनयोिकों और श्री सुरिीत नसंि, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में जनर्ििष्ट औद्योजगक जववाि में केन्रीय

सरकार औद्योजगक अजिकरण- सि- श्रम न्यायालय-1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संिभि संख्या 49/2020) को िैसा दक अनुलग्नक में

दिखाया गया िै, को प्रकाजित करती िै िो केन्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 25/05/2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023/-106-आईआर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 25th May, 2023

S.O. 1062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2020) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court –1,Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

The General manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telephone Exchange, Ferozepur, Punjab; Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telephone Exchange, Fazilka, Punjab; Sub Divisional Engineer,

Group-II, BSNL, Fazilka, Punjab; JTO Sh. Sanjay Rewaria, C/o General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd. Telephone Exchange, Ferozepur, Punjab; M/s A.S. Telematics Pvt. Ltd., District Center Janakpuri, New Delhi,

and Shri Surjit Singh, worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

05/04/2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023/-106-IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH.

Present: Sh. J.K. TRIPATHI, PRESIDING OFFICER.

ID No. 49/2020

Registered On:-22.03.2021

Surjit Singh S/o Sh. Hukam Singh,

2134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

R/o Village Saiday Ke Uttar Urf Chandmari,

P.O. Bahik Khas, Tehsil and Distt. Fazilka (Punjab).

…Workman

Versus

The General manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telephone Exchange, Ferozepur, Punjab.

Divisional Engineer, Telecom Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telephone Exchange, Fazilka, Punjab.

Sub Divisional Engineer, Group-II, BSNL, Fazilka, Punjab.

JTO Sh. Sanjay Rewaria, C/o General manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telephone Exchange,

Ferozepur, Punjab.

M/s A.S. Telematics Pvt. Ltd. 808, AIC Jaina Tower-II, Plot No.6,

District Center Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. ......Respondents/Managements

AWARD

Passed On:-20.04.2023

The workman Surjit Singh has directly filed this claim petition under Section 2-A of the Industrial Dispute

Act 1947(hereinafter called the Act) for his illegal termination by the management.

The brief facts relevant for deciding this claim petition is that the workman joined his duty in the office of

General Manager, Telecom, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Telephone Exchange, Ferozepur, Punjab in 1997 in Fazilka

town and he continuously worked upto 30.11.2019 i.e. approximately for a period of 22 years without any break

with the respondents/managements. The workman during the initial years directly worked with the management and

the management used to pay him salary in cash by SDO. At that time Sh. Rinku Arora was working as JTO and the

workman worked with him for a period of one year. The workman was assured by the management at the time of the

initial engagement that he will be regularized against the regular vacancy. The workman worked with SDO Group-II

Fazilka and Sh. Sanjay Rewaria was working as J.E. and Sh. Harish Ghumber was serving as SDO. The workman

was working under the direct control and supervision of the management of respondent nos.1 to 4. The workman

worked in Arniwala Telephone Exchange for a period of three years. The workman also worked in Mandi Laduka,

Teh. Kalandar and Bajewala till 30.11.2019 and also worked for a period of three years in Group-II Fazilka. The

workman was not paid his salary for the last 11 months w.e.f. January 2019 to November 2019 and when the service

of the workman was terminated Sh. Sukhwinder Singh was working as JTO in Ferozepur, Punjab. The workman in

2018 met with an accident while performing his official duty as per orders of management and his right shoulder

was injured very badly and a steel rod was inserted in his shoulder and he remained hospitalized as indoor patient in

Medical College Faridkot. No treatment was given to the workman by ESI dispensary/hospital and an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- was spent by his relatives for his treatment when he remained admitted as indoor patient in Medical

College at Faridkot and this amount was also not reimbursed to the workman whereas it was the first and foremost

duty of the management to take him in hospital for free treatment and the money spent by his relatives should have

also been reimbursed but all in vain. From the date of joining i.e. from 1997 to 2009 salary was paid to the workman

by the SDO. After 2009 the contractor Sh. Roshan Lal started deducting EPF from the salary of the workman and

the workman never met to any contractor for performing his official duties. All of sudden without any rhyme and

reason on 30.11.2019 the workman was not allowed to perform his official duty by the SDO BSNL and the services

of the workman were terminated by the management illegally, arbitrarily, unlawfully and against the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the termination of the services of the workman no notice or one month pay in

lieu thereof was even given to the workman despite the fact that the workman completed more than 22 years approx.

and no retrenchment compensation was offered rather fresh persons were engaged by the management. The

mandatory provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have grossly been violated by

the management by terminating the services of workman and therefore, the action of the management amounts to

unfair labour practice. In view of the averments made above, it is therefore prayed that the management be directed

to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages w.e.f. 01.12.2019 with continuity of service along with

18% interest in the interest of justice.

3. The management has filed its written statement, alleging therein that there is no master and servant

relationship between the workman and management nor the workman was engaged by the management nor paid any

wages nor there is any supervision and control over the workman by the BNSL as alleged by the workman in his

statement of claim. The work of petty nature was got performed through various contractors from time to time as per

the policy of the Government and contract agreements had been executed with them. The contract agreements for

the relevant period are attached as Annexure M-1 to M-29. It is denied that the workman had joined the duties in the

O/o GMT, BSNL Ferozepur in 1997 and the workman worked with the BSNL upto 30.11.2019. It is further denied

that the workman initially worked directly with BSNL and any salary was being paid by the SDO, BSNL in cash. It

is further denied that the workman worked with SDO Group-II Fazilka in 1998 when Sh. Sanjay Rewaria was

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2135

working as JE and Sh. Harish Ghumber was serving as SDO. It is further denied that the workman was working

under the direct control and supervision of the management of respondent no.1 to 4 and payment of salary was being

made by SDO concerned and worked in Arniwala Telephone Exchange for a period of three years or further in

Mandi Laduka or Kalandar and Bajewala till 30.11.2019. The workman may be engaged by the contractor who has

been taking the work from the workman in performance of the contract and the workman was never engaged by

BSNL for performance of these duties. The workman is making the false averments without any substance or

evidence of his working continuously or regarding the payment. It is denied that the workman has not been paid

salary for last 11 months i.e. from January, 2019 to November, 2019. It is denied that the workman was terminated

and Mrs. Sukhwinder Singh may be working as JTO but he had no concern with the workman as the workman may

have been engaged by the contractors. The management is not having any information with regard to such incidence

of the accident of workman or treatment taken by the workman in any hospital nor the same has ever been reported

to the answering-management by the workman or any contractor at any relevant time. The workman has himself

admitted that he worked with contractor Sh. Roshan Lal who started deducting EPF from his salary. It is specifically

denied that the workman was terminated by the management illegally, arbitrarily and unlawfully whereas the facts

are that the workman was never engaged by the BSNL nor paid him any wages nor he worked under the supervision

and control of BSNL as the workman himself has not placed on record any evidence to prove his engagement or

payment or supervision or control. Since the workman was not engaged by BSNL so the question of placing other

employees in his place by BSNL does not arise. Since the workman was not the workman of BSNL nor his services

were terminated by BSNL therefore, serving of notice of one month or pay in lieu thereof does not arise. The

management has not violated the provisions contained in Section 25-F, G & H of the ID Act as alleged. In view of

the position stated above, it is therefore, prayed that the claim of the workman may kindly be dismissed with cost as

the workman is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal on 20.04.2023, the workman Sh. Surjit Singh

has made a statement that he has amicably settled the matter with the management and he do not want to pursue the

matter and prayed for withdrawal of the same. Since a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, there is no

need to proceed with the matter further.

5. It is now well settled position in law that any settlement arrived at between the parties is legally binding

upon both the parties in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

6. In view of the statement made by the workman Sh. Surjit Singh, the present claim petition is dismissed as

settled. The statement made by the workman Sh. Surjit Singh shall remain the integral part of the Award.

7. Let copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication of the same as required under

Section 17(2) of the Act.

J. K. TRIPATHI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1063.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 24/2016) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/147/2015-आई आर (सी. एम-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2023

S.O. 1063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L-20012/147/2015-IR(CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

2136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr. S. K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 10(1) (D) OF THE I.D. ACT, 1947.

REFERENCE No. 24 OF 2016.

PARTIES :

Central Secretary,

Jharkhand Colliery Mazdoor Union,

At Parbad, PO: Jeenagora

Dhanbad 828115

Vs.

The General Manager,

Lodna Area of M/s BCCL

PO: Khas Jeenagora

Dhanbad, 828115

Order No. L-20012/147/2015-IR(CM-I) dt.02.02.2016

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

None .

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State

: Jhrkhand

Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17^th March , 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No. L-20012/147/2015-IR(CM-I) dt. 02.02.2016.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Joyrampur Colliery under Lodna Area of M/s BCCL

in dismissing Shri Jitu Singh, Pers. No. 02943137, Ex- Miner Loader from the services of the

Company is fair and justified? To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?”

1. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the

Respondent/Management. The postal articles sent to the workmen, referred above duly delivered to the workmen

union. The workmen did not move further except filing the written statement of claim .The Sponsoring Union was

given sufficient opportunity to further his contention as per claim statement but none turned up except once for

seeking time to file rejoinder to the written statement –cum- rejoinder filed by the OP/management .No step was

taken by the workman to proceed for adjudication of the dispute after filing the claim statement despite ample

opportunity afforded. which shows that the workman is not interested to adjudicate the matter on merit.

2. As thus, the workman has not made sincere attempt for the cause of the action nor has he made

attempts to push the matter on merit to prove his issue of the matter against the Respondent/management. As such,

the Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a “No Claim Award” and the same is passed in the instant reference

I.D Case No.24/2016

3. Let the copy of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Sec. 17 of the for

publication.

Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2137

नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1064.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

30/2003) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/246/2002-आईआर (कोल-I)]

मजणकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2023

S.O. 1064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023.

[No. L-20012/246/2002 - IR (C-I)]

MANIKANADAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present Dr. S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 30 OF 2003.

PARTIES:

The Vice President,

Rastriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

Rajendra Path, Post Box No. 22,

Dhanbad -826001,

(Jharkhand).

Vs.

The General Manager,

Katras Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Katras , Disst: , Dhanbad-826001.

Order No. L-20012/246/2002-IR(C-I) dt.10.03.2003

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

: None .

On behalf of the Management

Mr. S.N, Ghosh . Ld. Advocate

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17^th March, 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/246/2002-IR(C-I) dt. 10.03.2003.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Katras Area of M/s BCCL for not referring the

workman Shri Manik Chandra, Attendance Clerk to Apex Medical Board /Age Assessment

Committee for determination of his age is fair and justified? If not, to which relief the

workman is entitled to''

2138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1. The brief facts of the case as per written statement of claim by the workman are that workman Manick

Chandra had been working in Gazlitand Colliery of Katras Area of M/s BCCL as Attendance Clerk since 12.10.1971.

He became member of CMPF after one and half year and his date of birth in CMPF record is 26.08.1952.In Service

Excerpt it was wrongly recorded as 26 years on 12.10.1971. The workman submitted application that his date of birth

should be 26.08.1952. The Management after verification found that in CMPF Record the date of birth is 26.08.1952

which is also mentioned in Identity Card because at the time of appointment in the original Form-B Register the date

of birth is recorded as 26.08.1952. During the conciliation when he wanted that the Management should produce the

original form-B Register, they refused .That he requested that if they are not in a position to produce original Form-B

system to assess the age as per the medical jurisprudence. Over this the OP/management did not agree. Thus the

workman seeks direction to direct the OP/Management to refer the workman to assess workman’s age without any

pressure to the Apex Medical Board.

2. In contrary to the claim of the workman the OP/Management in their counter replied that Sri Manik Chandra

was a permanent worker of Gazlitand Colliery of Katras Area presently working as Attendance Clerk .He was

appointed at Gazlitand Colliery on 12.10.1971 and his date of birth was written in the statutory record as 26 years as

on 12.10.1971 in Form-B Register.

a) That in the Identity Card the workman has tampered the record as there is erasing which is quite visible after

close scrutiny.

b) That in the Service Excerpt the date of birth has been mentioned 26 years as per from “B” and date of

appointment 12.10.1971 .He has not raised any dispute in the Service Excerpt.

c) That as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the National Coal Wages Act.III (NCWA) the above

recording of date of birth in the Form–B after being authenticated by the workman concerned is treated as

final.

d) In view of the above facts and as per record as the date of birth is contained in the Form”B” and also in

Service Excerpt, EDP there is no discrepancy.

e) Adding further that as per policy of the Company there is no point for raising the dispute at the fag end of his

employment and claiming for sending him to Apex Medical Board for determination of his age.

So the action of the OP/Management for accepting the date of birth as per Form-B as 26 years is just, fair and

legally correct. There is no merit in the claim for referring the workman concerned to the Apex Medical Board as per

policy of the Company. By this way the workman has not suffered any loss. As such he is also not entitled to get any

relief in the matter.

3. The issue involved of the matter proceeded and advanced on merit during the course of hearing after filing

statement of claim and counter-claim by the OP/Management the matter of the proceedings suddenly stopped on

evidence of workman.The workman could not produce evidence so the onus was passed on to the OP/Management

for the same issue. OP/Management also kept buying for time and did not come forward. In the absence of interest

from workman-side in adducing the witness and evidence on his behalf the matter left in mid way without taking

any further step in regular course even after serving notices to the parties and adjournments granted suo mottu itself.

So it is of no use to let hearing of the matter continue as the issue of matter of the proceeding has lost the merit

with passage of time.

4. Considering the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and the facts and circumstances the Reference, the

Tribunal has held it proper and justified not to proceed further in the absence of any interest and sincere approach on

the part of the Union/ workman . Since hearing of the case resumed in the year 2019 after a long gap even after

serving notices the Union/petitioner did not appear or make any further pleading on the matter. This shows the

workman’s unwillingness to go to finality of the issue under Reference through adjudication despite being provided

ample opportunity in the line of the natural justice. Thus, the Reference deserves for closure of the issue being devoid

of merit and unwillingness.Since the workmen concerned is no longer interested to proceed and pursue the case and

the matter under Reference, no relief is awarded to the workman.

Dr. S.K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1065.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k

esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2139

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la- 06/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/51/2011-आईआर(सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2023

S.O. 1065.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L-20012/51/2011-IR(CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 10(1) (D) OF THE I.D. ACT., 1947.

REFERENCE NO 06 OF 2012.

PARTIES:

The President, ,

Jharkhand Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union,

Bhowra, Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

Vs.

The General Manager,

Bastocalla Area of M/s BCCL .

PO: Dhansar, Distt: Dhanbad ,

(Jharkhand)

Order No. L-20012/51/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 20.12.2011

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

None .

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Advocate

State

Jhrkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15^th March, 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No. L-20012/51/2011-IR(CM-I) dt. 20.12.2011.

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Bastocolla Colliery of M/s BCCL in not regularizing

S/Sri Lal Mohan Mahato, Karu Saw and Haradhan Rawani as LHD Operator is justified and

fair? To what relief the workmen concerned is entitled to ?”

1 On receipt of the above reference ,notice was sent to the workmen as well as to the Respondent/Management

.The postal articles sent to the workmen ,referred above duly delivered to the workmen union. The workmen Union

filed the claim of the statement which was countered by the OP /Management .Apart from it one of the said

workmen namely Karu Saw adduced the evidence on3.2.2013 on behalf of the workmen. Thereafter sufficient

opportunity afforded to the workmen to prove the case on merit but none turned up in spite of repeated opportunity

,which shows that the workmen/ Union are not interested to adjudicate the matter on merit.

2. The workmen / Union has left the matter after filing written claim and merely adducing evidence once and

kept the issue hanging since 05.09.2014. The workman neither put their appearance nor they have filed evidence to

2140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

support of claim to prove his cause of action against the Respondent/management. The Tribunal is left with no

choice, except to pass a “No Claim Award” and the same is passed in the instant reference I.D Case No. 06/2012 ,

3. Let the copy of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Sec. 17 of the for

publication.

Dr. S. K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1066.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k

esa]dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल.ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 17/2019) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/29/2019-आई आर (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2023

S.O. 1066.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L-20012/29/2019-IR(CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.2), AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT: Dr. S.K.Thakur, Presiding Officer.

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 10(1)(D) OF THE I.D.ACT.,1947.

REFERENCE NO. 17 OF 2019.

PARTIES:

The Astt. Secretary,

Central Committee,

United Coal Workers Union,

IV/31, Main Colony.

Sudamdih, Dhanbad-828126

Vs.

The General Manager,

E.J Area of M/s BCCL,

PO: Bhowra , Dhanbad

828302

Order No. L-20012/29/2019-IR(CM-I) dt. 24.06.2019

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

: None .

On behalf of the Management

None

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17^th March, 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No.L-20012/29/2019-IR(CM-I) dt. 24.06.2019

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2141

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Bhowra (S) Colliery under E.J Area of M/s

BCCL in non-payment of SPRA & SPRA Arrear to Shri Govind Bhuia, Miner

Loader, Pers. No. 02992469 is fair and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?”

On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as to the Respondent/Management . The

postal article sent to the workman/Union, referred above, is duly delivered to the workman Union. Workman/Union is

given sufficient opportunity to fle claim statement but none turned up in spite of the opportunity afforded to file claim

statement, which shows that the workman/ Union is not interested in adjudication of the matter on merit.

Since the workman/Union has neither put their appearance nor they have filed statement of claim to prove

their cause against the Respondent/Management, As such this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to pass a “No

Claim Award” and the same is passed in the instant reference ID NO. 17/2019.

Let copy of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government as required under Section 17 of the Act for

publication.

Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1067.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

02 2015

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/136/2014-आईआर (सी.एम-I)]

मजणकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 1067.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L-20012/136/2014– IR (CM-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 10(1) (D) OF THE I.D. ACT., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 02 OF 2015.

PARTIES:

Jt. General Secretary,

Bahujan Mazdoor Union

Mines Rescue Station,

PO : Dhansar, Dhanbad -828106

Vs.

The. General Manager,

P. B. Area of M/s BCCL.,

PO : Kusunda, Dhanbad-828116 (Jharkhand),

2142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Order No. L-20012/136/2014-IR (CM-I) dt. 05.01.2015 :

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr. R.R. Ram ,

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

: Mr. Ganesh Prasad

Ld. Advocate

State

Jharkhand Industry

: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 21st March, 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/136/2014-IR (CM-I) dt. 05.01.2015.

SCHEDULE

“Whether action of the management of P.B.Area of M/s BCCL in denial to correct the age of Shri

Bijay Dusadh, SDL Operator, in all the records of the Company as 1960 instead of 11.02.1956 is

fair and justified. To what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between Employer, i.e. the Management of M/s General Manager, P.B. Area of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad and its

workman/claimant herein, under cause (d) of the Sub Section (1) and sub Section (2A) of Sect. 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 vide Order No. L-20012/136/2014-IR (CM-I) dt. 05.01.2015 .for adjudication on the issue

referred above. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the Management as well

for appearance and filing claim.

2. Responding to the Notice the Sponsoring Union appearing on behalf of the workman filed the written

statement of claim with facts that workman concerned Shri Bijay Dusadh designated as SDL Operator appointed in

Burragarh Colliery on 1^st, June 1981 as permanent workman. The said workman was initially appointed in Burragarh

Colliery of M/s. BCCL and his date of birth was recorded as 1960 in Burragarh Colliery where he was initially

appointed. The date of birth is recorded at his initial place of posting at Burragarh Colliery as 1960. The same was

recorded in Form-B Register of the workman and also in the Service Excerpt and I. D. Card.

The workman concerned was transferred to Simlabahal Colliery from Burragarh Colliery of M/s BCCL where

his date of birth is recorded as 1960 as per his old Form “B” Register of initial appointment. At present the workman

is posted at Bhalgora Project New Pit under the P.B.Area of M/s BCCL. Noteworthy while preparing NEIS at Head

Quarter level, the date of birth of the workman is recorded as 11.02.1956 without consent of the workman which is

wrong and incorrect.

When the matter came to the knowledge of the workman that his date of birth is recorded wrongly i.e,

11.02.1956, he represented himself before the Authority to record his correct of date of birth as 1960. As per

representation of the workman concerned the Authority of Bhalgora Project called for the old form “B” Register from

the authority of Burragarh Colliery , his initial place of appointment. The action of the Management of P.B. Area of

M/s BCCL in denial to correct his date of birth as 1960 is unjustified and unfair. The workman concerned is entitled

to get relief. That the actual date of birth of the workman concerned is 1960 as recorded in all records of the

Company. So the Union/workman prays for treating his correct date of birth as 1960. With the claim the workman

also filed supporting documents in contention of his pleading to substantiate the fact.

3. The workman represented to the Colliery Management for necessary correction instead of 11.02.1956.His

date of birth dispute was examined properly and after due examination the Competent Authority has been pleased to

rectify his date of birth 12.02.1956 to 01.06.1060 vide order dt. 06.01.2016 and communicated to the workman

concerned and concerned officials. Copy of the office Order dt. 01.02.2011 has also been filed confirming the

redressal of the grievance as dispute raised in the instant reference.

4. Thus the Tribunal held that the Workman do not have grievance any longer against the OP/Management

on the matter of the issue under Reference. So the reference is closed as non-existent of any dispute any longer in

between the OP/Management and the workman. The reference Industrial Dispute is disposed of accordingly as non-

existent.

Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2143

नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1068.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

211 1998

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/614/97-आईआर (कोल-I)]

मजणकंिन एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 1068.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.211/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023.

[No. L-20012/614/97 -IR(Coal-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr. S. K. Thakur, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 211 OF 1998.

PARTIES:

The Secretary,

BCKU, Jharnapara Hirapur, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager, (P & IR)

M/s BCCL, Koyla Bhawan,

Dhanbad .

Order No. L-20012/614/97-IR (Coal-I) dt. 30.11.98 .

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

: Mr. D. Mukherjee Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management

Mr. R. N. Ganguly Ld. Advocate

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th March, 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their

Order No. L-20012/614/97-IR (Coal-I) dt. 30.11.98.

SCHEDULE

Whether the demand of the Union for the employment of the dependents of Lat Bahadur Yadav and Late

Hera Ram Khelawar on compassionate ground of reference case No. 105/90 is legal and justified? If so, to what

relief the dependent of these workmen are entitled to ?

1. This is a Reference received from the appropriate Government vide Ministry’s Order No. L-20012/614/97-

IR(Coal-I) dt. 30.01.1998 to adjudicate whether the demand of the Union for the employment of the dependents of

2144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Lat Bahadur Yadav and Late Hera Ram Khelawar on compassionate ground arising out of Reference Case No.

105/90 is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the dependent of these workmen are entitled to ?

2. The brief facts as stated in the claim petition is that the claimants dependents of the Lat Bahadur Yadav and

Late Hera Ram Khelawar respectively raised a dispute based on Reference Case No. 105/90 was adjudicated and

awarded by the CGIT No. 1, Dhanbad whereby the workmen concerned were directed to be regularized by the

OP/Management with consequential effects. The matter was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court ,Patna at

Ranchi Bench with confirmation to the said Award. In the wake of said Award confirmed by the Hon’ble High

Court,Ranchi the Union and Management agreed upon in a bipartite settlement to reinstate and regularize the

workmen concerned involved with said Reference with payment of Rs. 3,000/- to each of them. But unfortunately

the workmen concerned Lal Bahadur Yadav and Hare Ram Khelwar died on 15.10.1990 and 28.10.1991 respectively

. By taking ride of the provisions of the agreement of NCWA(National Coal Wages Agreement) a bye-laws enforced

in the Collieries, the dependants of the Late workmen / the Union demanded employment before the OP/Management

being themselves dependents/ substitute to referred Late workmen.

3. Per contra the Management filed written statement denying the stand taken by the claimants as vague not

specifically furnishing the particular names for whom employment under adjudication is to be required, thus not

maintainable. OP/Management contended that the award passed by the CGIT NO. 1 cannot be accepted as it

suffered from multiple infirmities. The Management filed a Writ before the Hon’ble High Court showing intention to

fight the case upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court as many persons included in the Award were not the genuine

workmen and the Tribunal without deciding the authenticity of the workmen passed the Award for providing

employment to large number of persons. So it has been pleaded that there exists no industrial dispute.

4. During the pendency on behalf of the Union, both the workmen individually adduced their evidence as

WW-1 and WW-2 with documentary evidences and subsequently onus shifted to the side of Management. It has

been pleaded that there exists no Industrial Dispute and the claim is not maintainable. But it has been observed that

the workmen side abruptly stopped appearing since 27.02.2006 leaving the matter in lurch. As such it is absolutely

clear that claimants did not appear to be interested in hearing even after serving fresh notices to stalled proceedings

affording all possible opportunities.

5. Since the claimants of the above two workmen finally stopped appearing nor did show sign of sincere

effort on their part to the contest the case for furtherance for his cause against the Employer /Management since

27.02.2006 barring a single appearance availing more than ten adjournments and three successive notices since

2019. Thus having no other remedy the Tribunal is left with no option, except to pass a No Claim Award.

Accordingly proceedings is disposed of with No Claim Award granting no relief to the said two claimants being

devoid of merit in the Reference.

Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1069.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

12 2003

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/178/2002-आईआर (सी-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 1069.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023.

[No. L-20012/178/2002 -IR(C-I)]

MANIKANDAN N., Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer.

IN THE MATTER OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 10(1)(D) OF THE I.D.ACT.,1947.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2145

REFERENCE NO. 12 OF 2003.

PARTIES :

The Vice President.,

Janta Mazdoor Samgh.

Bihar Building,

Jharia, Dhanbad -826001 .

The General Manager,

Sijua Area of M/s BCCL.

PO : Sijua, Dhanbad -826001

Order No. L-20012/178/2002-IR(C-I) Dt. 10.12.02

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D. K. Verma

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th March, 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/178/2002-IR(C-I) Dt. 10.12.02.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Tetulmari Colliery of M/s BCCL in not accepting the

date of birth of Sri Raja Ram Singh as 9.2.52 as against 1.1.49, on the basis of various service

records is fair and justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?”

1) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between Employer, i.e., the Management of M/s General Manager, Sijua Area of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad and its

workman / claimant herein, under clause (d) of the Sub Section (1) and sub Section (2A) of the Sec. 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 vide order No. L-20012/178/2002-IR(C-I) dt.10.12.2002 for adjudication on the issue

referred above. On receipt of the above reference, notice was sent to the workman as well as the management as well

for appearance and filing claim.

2) The facts as put forward by the workman are as under hat the concerned workman namely Shri Raja Ram

Singh was a permanent employee of BCCL Establishment in Tetulmari Colliery as Attendance Clerk with his

appointment on 1.1.1973 with date of birth in Service Record as 9.2.1952 which is evident from the relevant

documents Service Excerpts, Identity Card etc. It is notable that said date of birth of the concerned workman was also

communicated to him with correction as 9.2.52 in the Service Excerpts. After coming to know about his correction in

his date of birth he approached for necessary correction n Form-B Register but Management did not pay even the

repeated requests .So he took up the matter with the Union .and the Union brought the matter before the Management

who stick to the pleading that the date of birth of the workman was recorded as 9.2.52 at the time of appointment

since no question arises to make correction in it without getting report from the Competent Authority like Medical

Board. So the mater could not be materialized through negotiation and resulted in failure leading to the Reference

before the Tribunal for adjudication.

3) Contrary to it, the OP/Management asserted that the Reference in itself is not maintainable either in law

or facts. that the workman was working as Attendance Clerk under Sijua Area of M/s BCCL with initial appointment

at West Mudidih Colliery of Katras Area of M/s BCCL on 1.1.1993. The workman concerned at the time of his

appointment declared his age as 24 years as on 1.1.1973 which was recorded along with other particulars in the Form

B- Register of West Mudidih Colliery under Katras Area and the workman’s signature in Register stands proved in

token of acceptance of his date of birth. So as per his declaration the date of birth comes as 1.1.1949. The Form-B

birth of an employee. So, the change in date of birth as recorded is not possible in any circumstances. As such the

demand of the Union for correction of his date of birth as 9.2.1952 is neither legal nor justified.

4) Upon filing the claim and counter claim by the Appellant and Responder respectively the matter called

for filing of relevant documents which subsequently filed by the workman and OP/Management as well. The

proceedings of the matter set in motion over evidence of the workman which due to non-appearance of the workmen

led to close of proceeding finding no cogent reason to continue. But prayer was made for recalling the order for

2146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

granting one more opportunity for hearing on evidence of the workman which after rolling over since 05.06.2008 the

workman side failed to adduce evidence till closure of the case even after availing more than ten adjournments,

5) Since the workman has neither adduced any evidence nor has he led any evidence so as to prove his cause

against the OP/Management even after providing ample opportunity ,this Tribunal is left with no choice, except to

pass “No Relief Award. Accordingly No Relief is awarded.

Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 9 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1070.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj बी.सी.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k-सि-Je U;k;ky; नं. 2] िनबाि ds iapkV (lanHkZ la-

15 2003

/

) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-20012/204/2002-आईआर(सी-I)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2023

S.O. 1070.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.15/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of

B.C.C.L. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/06/2023

[No. L-20012/204/2002-IR(C-I)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD.

Present: Dr. S.K.THAKUR, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D.Act., 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 15 OF 2003.

PARTIES:

The Secretary.

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

Jharnapara, Hirapur, Dhanbad -826001.

(Jharkhand).

Vs.

The General Manager,

Madhuban Washery Zone, of M/s BCCL,

PO: Mahuda, Distt. Dhanbad 826001

Order No. L-20012/204/2002-IR(C-I) Dt. 24.01.2003.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman/Union

Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate.

On behalf of the Management

Mr. H. Nath. Ld. Advocate

State

Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 20th March, 2023

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.,1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/204/2002-IR(C-I) Dt.24.01.2003 .

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2147

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Madhuban Washery of M/s BCCL in not

paying Ram Chandra Bhuia, Piece Rated Mazdoor SPRA/yearly increment legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?”

1. The brief facts of the case as per written statement of claim by the workman is that workman Ram Chandra

Bhuia had been working in Madhuban Washery since long with his initial appointment at Kharkharee Colliery and

then transferred to Moonidih Project. The Management of Moonidih Project again transferred the concerned workman

to Moonidih Washery in 1998. But all of a sudden the Management stopped the payment of additional increment to

the workman without assigning any reason and without complying of the mandatory provision of Sec. 9A of the I.D.

Act. The action of the management of not paying SPRA/yearly additional increment w.e.f.1998 was illegal, arbitrary,

unjustified and against the principle of natural justice. Thereby seeking necessary direction to the Management to

restore necessary SPRA/yearly additional increment with retrospective effect with all arrear of wages and

consequential benefits.

2. Contrary to it the O.P./Management in its counter asserted that the workman initially appointed on

17.10.1979 at Kharkharee Colliery. From there he was transferred to Moonidih Project and from there to Moonidih

Washery on 30.12.93 and finally he was transferred to Madhuban Washery on 9.2.99. The OP/Management took the

pleading that before transfer to Madhuban Washery his last L.P.C. and designation of workman Shri Ram Chandra

Bhuia was mentioned originally Group V-A and he was on roll of Moonidih Washery as PRM Group - VA and he

was getting Group V-A wages. Since the workman is getting the wages which he was entitled for .So the allegation

of the Union of not paying Piece Rated Mazdoor SPRA/Yearly increment is false and unjustified as the workman is

getting the wages which he was entitled for .Thus he is not entitled to SPRA as demanded by the Union/petitioner.

Further in its rejoinder the Management came out with rebuttal of the points of claim raised by the Union.

3. The proceedings of the matter after filing the claim and counter claim by both of the parties proceeded on

evidence on the part of the Management on refusal of adducing any evidence by the workman, the onus shifted to

Management /OP to discharge. But the proceeding stalled in spite of sufficient adjournments availed by the both of

the parties which stands roaming from 07.05.2008 to 14.06.2016 with no major improvement. Despite of fresh revival

of attempts of serving notices to both of the parties, the petitioner /Union left the matter midway and did not represent

in regular course.

4. After having meticulously gone through the issue and considering all the aspects as a whole the Tribunal

has no hesitation to hold that despite providing so much opportunity the workman/Union did not bother to take any

step nor did make any attempt to represent the case during the crucial stage. This apparently shows that the union

/Petitioner has discarded the matter and left it in mid-way without taking any step. So the Tribunal has sufficient

reasons to believe that there exists no dispute as of now between the employer and employee as such no claim Award

is passed. The workman is not granted any relief due to desertion of the dispute raised by the workman.

Dr. S. K. THAKUR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1071.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार आयल एंड नेचुरल गैस कॉपोरेशन वलवमटेड; मेससा ठट्रग गाडा फोसा वलवमटेड, मेहसाना के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

वनयोजकों और गुजरात मज़दूर सभा, अहमदाबाद के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं

श्रम न्द्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (ठरफरेन्द्स न.-59/2012) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत

करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30011/3/2011-आईआर(एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2023

S.O. 1071.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 59/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Management of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited; M/s Trig Guard Force Limited, Mehsana and Gujarat

Mazdoor Sabha, Ahmedabad which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

14.06.2023.

[No. L-30011/3/2011-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 11^th April, 2023.

Reference: (CGITA) No. 59/2012

1. The Asset Manager,

ONGC Ltd., Mehsana Asset,

Palvasna, Mehsana.

2. M/s Trig Guard Force Ltd.,

124, Urmi Shopping Centre,

Opp. B. K. Cinema, Mehsana.

…. First Party

The General Secretary,

Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha,

104, Maharana Pratap Complex, 1^st Floor,

Near V. S. Hospital,

Opp. Ellisbridge Post Office,

Ellisbrudge, Ahmedabad

…Second Party

Advocate for the First Party employer : Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel

Advocate for the Second Party workman : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30011/3/

2011-IR(M) dated 24.01.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of 13 workmen listed in Annexure

1 by the management of ONGC Ltd., Mehsana is fair, legal and justified? What relief

the workmen are entitled to?”

1. The matter was taken up today. First Party No. 1 /employer is represented through Ld. Counsels Shri K. V.

Gadhia and Shri M. K. Patel, Shri Chintan P. Gohel, Ld. Counsel has filed vakalatnama Ex.19 for the Second Party

workman namely Shri Chaudhary Karsanbhai Lavjibhai shown at Sr. No.9. He has also filed withdrawal application

Ex.20 of workman Shri Chaudhary Karsanbhai Lavjibhai to withdraw the reference simplicitor. Withdrawal

application Ex. 20 is allowed. The reference stands withdrawn to the extent of this workman Shri Chaudhary

Karsanbhai Lavjibhai accordingly.

2. Perusal of record shows that 8 workmen namely Prajapati Kantibhai Keshabhai Sr. No. 2, Chaudhary

Vishnubhai Narsungbha Sr. No. 3, Chaudhary Babubhai Keshabhai Sr. No. 4, Chaudhary Maheshbhai Babubhai

Sr. No. 5, Chaudhary Mansangbhai Narsangbhai Sr. No. 6, Chaudhary Dahyabhai Kesabhai Sr. No. 7 Chaudhary

Ashwinbhai Dahyabhai Sr. No. 8 and Chaudhary Ashwinbhai Bababhai Sr. No. 13 vide order on withdrawal

application Ex. 6 dtd. 08.02.2016 and two workmen namely Chaudhary Babubhai Shankarbhai Sr. No. 1 and

Chaudhary Mansangbhai Rugnath Sr. No. 10 vide order on withdrawal application Ex. 16 have withdrawn the case to

their extent. The case is fixed for evidence of remaining two workmen namely Shri chaudhary Harshadbhai

Virsangbhai shown at Sr. No. 11 and Shri Gadhvi Hemubhai Govindbhai shown at Sr. No. 12. Who were afforded last

opportunity to adduce their evidence. They have neither appeared nor moved any application for adjournment. It

seems that they are not interested to proceed further in the matter. There is no other evidence on record to substantiate

the demand of the union for regularizing these two remaining workmen. The reference is answered accordingly and it

is held that the demand of union is not fair, legal and justified. The award is passed accordingly. The union/ workmen

are not entitled for any relief.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2149

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s 17(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1072.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार लाइफ इन्द्सुरेंस कॉपोरेशन ऑफ़ इंवडया, बरैली के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री राजकुमार पुत्र श्री भगिान

दास, बरैली के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट

(ठरफरेन्द्स नं. -43/2015) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 14.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-17012/1/2015-आईआर (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2023

S.O. 1072.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 43/2015) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bareily and Shri Rajkumar S/o Sri Bhagwan Dass, Bareily

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.06.2023.

[No. L-17012/1/2015-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 43/2015

Ref. No. L-17012/1/2015-IR(M) dated 05.05.2015

BETWEEN

Shri Rajkumar S/o Sri Bhagwan Dass Purana Mohanpur,

P.O PAC Nakatiya, Bareilly (U.P)

AND

The Divisional Manager, LIC of India

Divisional Office Deendayal Puram, Bareilly (UP)

AWARD

By Order No. L-17012/1/2015-IR(M) dated 05.05.2015 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour,

New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute for adjudication with following schedule:

“Whether the workman Sri Raj Kumar has been denied the benefits of the provisions of

Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If so, what benefits he should be provided by

the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Bareilly?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 43/2015 has been registered on 25.05.2015.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that after filing of statement of claim on

01.03.2016 and written statement on 30.07.2016 by an order dated 02.08.2016 the matter was fixed for filing of

rejoinder.

However, when the workman did not file its rejoinder in spite of several opportunities, his opportunity to file

rejoinder was closed vide order dated 11.09.2017; and he was asked to file its evidence on affidavit (Examination-in-

Chief). The claimant again did not file any evidence on affidavit (Examination-in-Chief).

2150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

When the claimant did not file its evidence even after affording many opportunities, the case was heard ex-

parte.

From the perusal of sheets, it appears that neither workman nor his authorized representative has appeared to

press the case on behalf of the claimant since 23.03.2021.

Accordingly, after hearing Sri N.N. Srivastava, learned authorized representative of the opposite parties and

taking into consideration the facts, the position which emerges out is that as no oral/documentary evidence has been

filed on behalf of the claimant to support his claim, as such, the adjudication case is liable to be dismissed.

Because, Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29)

FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.

Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative

for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is

challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file

written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in

favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,

V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)

FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led

by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In

such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead

evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,

who would fail if no evidence is led.”

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v.

Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519 has held as under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the

respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.

A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led

by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1073.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार आयल एंड नेचुरल गैस कॉपोरेशन वलवमटेड, बरोदा के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और वमस्टर टी. िी. सुनील,

बरोदा के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (ठरफरेन्द्स

न. -20/2014) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 14.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-30012/66/2013-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2023

S.O. 1073.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 20/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Management of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Baroda and Mr. T.V. Sunil, Baroda which was received

along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.06.2023.

[No. L-30012/66/2013-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2151

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: Sunil Kumar Singh-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad.

Dated 6^th April, 2023

Reference: (CGITA) No- 20/2014

1. The Executive Director,

ONGC Ltd., Western Sector, Makarpura Road,

BARODA – 390009.

2. The Group General Manager,

ONGC Ltd., Makarpura Road,

BARODA – 309009.

3. The y. General Manager-HER-ER,

ONGC Ltd., Makarpura Road,

BARODA – 390009.

….First Party

Mr. T. V. Sunil,

House No.20/B, Shankeshwar Society,

Nr. All India Radio Station,

Makarpura Road,

BARODA – 390009.

…. Second Party

Advocate for the First Party employer : Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel

Advocate for the Second Party workman : Shri M. H. Sanghariyat

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-30012/66/2013-

IR(M) dated 17.02.2014 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of the workman Sh. T. V. Sunil for reinstatement in service in the

establishment of ONGC Ltd., Baroda as Jr. Stenographer is legal, proper and just? If so, to

what relief the concerned workman Shri T. V. Sunil is entitled to?”

1. Today, the matter was called out. First Party employer is represented through Ld. Counsels Shri K. V.

Gadhia and Shri M. K. Patel. Second Party/workman Mr. T. V. Sunil is present along with his junior Ld. Counsel

Shri M. H. Sanghariyat. Case is listed for arguments. The Second Party workman has moved Ex.18 to withdraw this

reference on the ground that he has been granted required relief of reinstatement with the continuity of service with

back wages from Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ld. Counsels for the FP/employer have no objection. Withdrawal

application Ex.18 is accordingly allowed. The reference stands withdrawn as prayed.

2. Thus the reference is finally disposed of as withdrawn.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s

17(1) of Industrial Disputes Act.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1074.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार

दामोदर सीमेंट िर्कसा (एसीसी) के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और दामोदर सीमेंट एंड स्लैग वलवमटेड श्रवमक कमाचारी

यूवनयनके बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, आसनसोल के पंचाट (ठरफरेन्द्स

न. -01/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के

साथ 14.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-29011/19/2016-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

2152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2023

S.O. 1074.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 01/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Management of Damodar Cement Works (ACC) and Damodar Cement & Slag Limited Shramik Employees Union

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 09.06.2023.

[No. L-29011/19/2016-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE No. 01 OF 2017

PARTIES: Damodhar Cement and Slag Ltd. Shramik Karmachari Union

Vs.

Management of Damodhar Cement Works (ACC)

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Samaresh Banerjee, Union representative.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Cement.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

18.05.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-29011/19/2016-IR(M) dated 25.04.2017 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Damodhar Cement Works (ACC), Madhukunda and their workmen for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Damodhar Cement Works (ACC) Madhukunda, in not

considering the demand of workmen in respect of grievances and working conditions which has

been raised by Damodhar Cement and Slag Ltd. Shramik Karmachari Union (INTTUC),

Madhukunda, a registered Union, is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-29011/19/2016-IR(M) dated 25.04.2017 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 01 of 2017 was registered on 04.05.2017and

an order was passed issuing Notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

2. None appears for the Management on call. The case was fixed up on 08.05.2023 for further cross-

examination of Mr. Sameresh Banerjee who was last examined on 27.12.2022 as workman witness - 1. Mr. Samaresh

Banerjee has appeared for examination on recall. It was submitted by him that he is Treasurer of Damodhar Cement

and Slag Limited Shramik Karmachari Union (INTTUC). Since no step has been taken on behalf of the Management,

cross-examination of Mr. Banerjee was closed.

3. Parties have filed written statements. However, the dispute is to be decided in light of the Schedule in the

Order. I find that the question raised in this Reference is vague as it does not clearly state what are the demands of the

workmen which have been denied by the employer. In view of such vague Schedule the issues involved cannot be

identified. Thus, the workmen failed to demonstrate their claims. The Industrial Dispute is inchoate in nature.

Accordingly, same is dismissed in the form of a No Dispute Award.

Hence,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2153

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1075.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार भारत पेट्रोवलयम कॉपोरेशन वलवमटेड; मेससा बी.एल. दास के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री सुबीर चटजी

पुत्र श्री कनाईलाल चटजी; श्री आशाबुल मंडल पुत्र श्री ताहेर अली मंडल एंड श्री अरुण कुमार िास पुत्र श्री सुनील कुमार

दास, नाडीअ के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट

(ठरफरेन्द्स नं. 01/2017) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट

कॉपी के साथ 14.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड -16025/04/2023-आई आर (एम)-50]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2023

S.O. 1075.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 01/2017) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited; M/s B.L. Das, Kolkata and Shri Subir Chatterjee S/o Shri

Kanailal Chatterjee; Shri Ashabul Mandal S/o Shri Taher Ali Mandal and Shri Arun Kumar Das S/o Shri Sunil Kumar

Das, Nadia which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 14.06.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-50]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present:

Justice K.D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

Application No. CGIT- 01 OF 2017 U/s. 2A(2) of I.D. Act.

Parties :

Sri Subir Chatterjee, S/o Sri Kanailal Chatterjee,

Vill.-Uttar Enayetpur, P.O.-Shimurali, P.S.-Chakdaha,

Dist.-Nadia, Nadia-741 248.

Sri Ashabul Mondal, S/o Sri Taher Ali Mondal, Vill.-

Khorgachi, P.O.-Rautari, P.S.-Chakdaha, Dist. Nadia,

Nadia-741 248.

Sri Arun Kumar Das, S/o Sri Sunil Kumar Das, Vill.-

Bramhapara, P.O.-Simurali, P.S. Chakdaha, Dist.-Nadia,

Nadia-741 248. ….Applicants

-Vs-

Head Retail East, Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.,

Bharat Bhavan, Golf Green, 31, KIT Scheme, 118,

Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road, Kolkata-700 095.

Territory Manager Retail, Kolkata, Bharat Petroleum

Corpn. Ltd., Bharat Bhavan, Golf Green, 31, KIT

Scheme, 118, Prince Gulam Md. Shah Road, Kol-95

OSTS Manager-BIROHI of Bharat Petroleum Corpn.

Ltd., at Birohi, Tantigachi, Rautari, Dist.-Nadia, W.B.

M/s B.L. Das, Operator BPCL Outlet, B.P. Birohi,

2154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

NH-34, 2/3, Olive Green Co-operative Housing Society

Ltd., Q-1/56, B.P. Township, Kolkata-700 094. …Opp. Parties

Appearance :

On behalf of the Applicants

: Sri S. Chakraborty, Adv.

On behalf of the Opp. Parties

: Sri A. Chakraborty, Adv.

Dated 24th May, 2023

ORDER

Dipak Kr. Bhattacharyya, the representative of the Union, who has filed the present case U/s. 2A(2) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 challenging the termination of three contractor employee viz. Mr. Subir Chatterjee, Mr. Ashabul

Mondal & Mr. Arun Kr. Das to be illegal and for their reinstatement with back wages and other benefits, has filed a

petition through his Ld. Counsel today stating that during the pendency of this case on amicable settlement has taken

place between the management of B.P.C.L. and the Union representing those workmen on 28.03.2023.That as per

provision of Sec. 2(P) and Sec. 18(I) the Union has agreed to withdraw all pending cases between the Union

represented by him and the management.

Therefore, he has prayed that he may be permitted to withdraw the present case.

Perused the petition copy served.

Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties present before the Tribunal. They too submits that in view of settlement

that has been executed between Union and the management of B.P.C.L., the Union has agreed to withdraw all pending

cases before any Court of law / tribunal.

In view of the above the Union is permitted to withdraw the present CGIT 01/2017. According to case stands

disposed of being withdrawn.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1076.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार एयरपोटा अथॉठरटी ऑफ़ इंवडया के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और उनके कमाकार के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट (ठरफरेन्द्स न. -34/2014) को जैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 14.06.2023 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-11011/14/2013-आई आर (एम)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 14th June, 2023

S.O. 1076.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 34/2014) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Management of Airport Authority of India and their Workmen/Union which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 14.06.2023.

[No. L-11011/14/2013-IR(M)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Present: Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

REF. No. 34 OF 2014

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2155

Airports Authority of India

AND

Their Workmen/Union

Appearance:

On behalf of Management: Airports Authority of India: Ld. Adv. S.K. Karmakar

On behalf of the Workmen/ Union

: None.

Dated 22th May, 2023

AWARD

The Management of Airports Authority of India is present through its Ld. Counsel.

Today too the Union is found absent despite due service of notice upon it as per track report.

It is worth to mention here the union, which has espoused the dispute has filed its claim statement and which

suggest that the union is well aware about the present reference case and its non-pursuance of late give rise to a

presumption that it is no more interested to pursue with the dispute, or perhaps it no more has grievance against the

management.

Be that as it may, the Govt. of India vide its Order No. L-11011/14/2013-IR (M) dated 03.04.2014 has

referred the issue “Whether the action of the Management of Airports Authority of India is justified in denying the

regularization of service of 4 nos. of casual workers viz. Sri Sanjoy Sarkar, Sri Biswajit Biswas, Sri Koushik Dutta

and Sri Khitish Ghosh is legal and /or justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?” for adjudication by

this tribunal.

Unfortunately, apart from the claim statement of the Union there is no oral or documentary evidence to

substantiate the claim made by the union.

In fact, there is no materials to adjudicate the dispute in question sabe and except the uncorroborated claim

statement.

In the above, ‘No Dispute Award’ is passed. Accordingly, Reference Case No. 34 of 2014 is disposed of.

Justice K. D. BHUTIA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1077.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार चीफ पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल, उत्तराखंड सर्काल, देहरादून; डाक अिीक्षक, पौडी सर्काल, पौडी गहरिाल, गढ़िाल,

उत्तराखंड, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री वगरीश चंद रातुरी, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार

औद्योवगक अविकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (संदभा सं. 31/2019) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया

गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-40012/12/2017 -आई आर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2023

S.O. 1077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Chief Post Master General, Uttrakhand Circle, Dehradun ; The Supreiindendent of Post , Pauri Circle,Pauri

Gahrwal, Garhwal, Uttrakhand, and Shri Girish Chand Raturi, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 02.06.2023.

[No. L-40012/12/2017 -IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

2156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 31/2019

Date of Passing Award- 22^nd May, 2023

Between:

Shri Girish Chand Raturi,

S/o Late Shri Seesh Ram,

Village & Post Office- Sankarsand Patti Bali,

Kandarsuin, Garhwal, Uttrakhand-246123.

…Workman

Versus

1. Chief Post Master General,

Uttrakhand Circle, Dehradun-248001

2. Supreindendent of Post , Pauri Circle,

Pauri Gahrwal, Garhwal, Uttrakhand-246001

….Managements

Appearances:-

Workman in person.

None for the Management.

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e.(i) Chief Post Master General, (ii) Superintendent of Post and its workman/claimant herein,

under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter

No. L-40012/12/2017 IR(DU)) dated 24.01.2019 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of Superintendent of Post, Pauri Circle Pauri

Garhwal in terminating the services of the workman Shri. Girish Chand Raturi, S/o Shri.

Sheesh Ram Raturi w.e.f. 28/10/2010 is legal and justified, if not then what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

As per the claim statement the claimant Girish Chand Raturi was appointed in the mgt on 23.03.1987 as

Postman pursuant to a written order. He was discharging his duty with all seniority and commitment. During the

course of his employment he had not given any scope of complaint to anybody and no disciplinary action was ever

taken against him. On 03.05.2010 advertisement was issued to fill up the vacant posts of Postmaster at Shankar Sen

and the claimant submitted his application for the same on 21.05.2010. His application was received by the mgt much

prior to the last date. Not only that his application through the employment exchange was also received before the due

date. Despite that the claimant was not called for the interview held for the post though he was having all the requisite

qualification and experience for the post and in a better footing than all other applicants. The mgt ignoring the

experience of the claimant who was working for the mgt since 1987 ignored him by keeping him aware from the zone

of consideration. The claimant sought for the information about the status of his application for employment by filing

an application under the RTI Act. In the year 2012 the information was furnished stating that his candidature has been

rejected. The claimant thereafter made representations in writing as well as verbally to the officers of the mgt to

consider his candidature but his grievance was not redressed. Finding no other way he raised a dispute before the

CGIT Lucknow. But the CGIT Lucknow returned his application with a direction to approach the conciliation officer.

Though an application was filed by him before the conciliation officer, no fruitful results could be achieved. For the

failure of conciliation the appropriate Govt. referred the matter for adjudication in terms of the reference.

It has been stated in the claim petition that the service of the claimant was illegally terminated with effect

from 28.10.2010 and he had worked continuously for the mgt from 23.03.1987 to 27.11.2010. During this period no

disciplinary action was taken against him. At the time of his termination the provisions of section 25F and 25M were

violated by the mgt. Hence, in this claim petition the claimant had prayed for a direction to the mgt to reinstate him in

service w.e.f 27.11.2010 with full back wages and continuity of service.

Being noticed the mgt had filed a written statement denying the stand taken by the claimant. The mgt had

denied his relationship with the claimant as its employer. The specific stand taken is that on 23.02.1997 the claimant

was temporarily appointed to perform the duty of postman on the leave vacancy as the regular postman Khushal Singh

has proceeded on leave. Girish Chand Raturi was never appointed as a postman on 23.02.1987 as claim rightly.

Hence, no letter of appointment was issued to him. The mgt had admitted that the Department of Post had issued

advertisement to fill the post of postmaster of Shankar Sen as the post became vacant on account of the retirement of

the post master. Altogether five applications were received and the merit list of the candidates was prepared by the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2157

appointing authority. In the said merit list the claimant was placed at serial number 5. Hence, he was not given

appointment over the more qualified person and no illegality has been committed by not selecting him for the post of

postmaster. The other stand taken by the mgt is that the claimant was never appointed as the postman for the period

1987 to 2010. Neither any appointment letter nor any termination letter was issued in favour of the claimant. Since he

had worked for a brief period against a leave vacancy, his claim for reinstatement with back wages is illegal and

unjustified. Hence he mgt had prayed for dismissal of the claim.

The claimant filed rejoinder denying the stand of the mgt. It has been reiterated that he was appointed on

23.03.1987 and his service was terminated on 27.10.2011 illegally. He was never appointed against any leave

vacancy but his appointment was made directly against the vacant post.

On this rival pleading the following issues are framed for adjudication.

Issues

Whether the proceeding is maintainable.

Whether there exists any relationship as employer and employee between the management and the

workman.

Whether the workman was illegally terminated by the management.

Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement and other consequential benefits.

When the claimant was called upon to adduce evidence he filed his affidavit to form part of his evidence

along with documents. Since that date the mgt remained absent. Neither the claimant was cross examined by the mgt

nor any evidence was adduced to support their stand. Hence the right to adduce evidence was closed.

The claimant while giving evidence as ww1 produced few documents which were marked in a series of ww1/1 to

ww1/15. The documents include the certificates of the claimant in proof of his academic qualification these

documents show that the claimant had passed intermediate examination (High Secondary) in the year 1984 exbht.

WW1/5 is a document which reveals that one Khushal Singh, post office Shankar Sen was granted leave from

19.03.1987 to 02.04.1987 without pay. WW1/6, WW1/7 and ww1/8 are the documents which reveal that the claimant

was working for brief period as the postman against the temporary vacancies in different post offices. WW1/9 is the

letter of the employment officer forwarding the application of the claimant to the Superintendent of post offices on

31.05.2010 for consideration against a vacant post. Similarly ww1/10 and ww1/11 are the letters showing taking over

of the charge by the claimant during his temporary appointments. WW1/12 is the copy of the advertisement issued for

filling of the post of the postmaster Shankar Sen. Ww1/13 is the application filed by the claimant before the

conciliation officer. Basing on these documents the claimant has stated that he was working as the postman for the

mgt from 23.03.1987 to 27.11.2010 when his service was illegally terminated. For the objection taken by the mgt

denying the employer employee relationship and the status claim by the claimant, it is incumbent upon the claimant to

establish that he was appointed as a postman by the mgt on 23.03.1987 and had worked continuously till 27.11.2010.

The claimant in his oral statement though has asserted this fact, absolutely no documentary evidence has been

adduced to prove the employment. Neither the letter of appointment nor any document like attendance register and

salary slip etc. have been filed by the claimant. The isolated oral testimony cannot prove the status of the claimant as

an employee of the mgt for the above said period. Now coming to the documents filed by the claimant, even if those

stand unchallenged and unrebutted, this Tribunal does not find it proper to rely on the said documents since the

documents clearly proves that the claimant was appointed intermittently against temporary vacancies. Neither he was

in permanent nor in continuous employment of the mgt. Apart from this no evidence has been adduced to show the

termination which has been denied by the mgt. Hence, it is concluded that the claim of the claimant for reinstatement

into service and other reliefs on account of illegal termination as alleged by him is not maintainable and the claimant

is not entitled to any relief. Hence ordered

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered against the claimant. This held that the claimant is not entitled to

the relief of reinstatement into service with back wages under the mgt.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHNATY, Presiding Officer

2158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 19 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1078.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार आयुि, उत्तरी ददल्ली नगर वनगम, चौथी मंवजल, वसविक सेंटर, ममंटो रोड, नई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध

वनयोजकों और श्री मनोज कुमार और 03 अन्द्य, द्वारा - अध्यक्ष, एमसीडी जनरल मजदूर यूवनयन, शाहजहााँ रोड, नई ददल्ली,

के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (संदभा संख्या

65/2019) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

02.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/2/2019 -आई आर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2023

S.O. 1078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 4th Floor, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi, and Shri

Manoj Kumar and 03 Others, Through- The President , MCD General Mazdoor Union, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi,

which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.06.2023.

[No. L-42011/2/2019 -IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 65/2019

Date of Passing Award- 15^th May, 2023

Between:

Sh. Manoj Kumar and 03 Others,

Through- The President , MCD General Mazdoor Union,

Room No. 95, Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,

New Delhi-110011.

….Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 4^th Floor, Civic Centre,

Minto Road, New Delhi-110002.

….Management

Appearances:-

Shri B. K Prasad, Ld.A/R for the claimant.

None for the management.

AWARD

In the present case, a reference was received from the appropriate Government vide letter

No. L-42011/2/2019 (IR(DU)) dated 14.02.2019 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Act, for adjudication of a dispute, terms of which are as under :

“Whether the action of the management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation in denying

regular appointment on compassionate grounds to workmen Sh. Manoj Kumar & 3

others whose details are mentioned herewith in Annexure-A is fair, Legal and justified? If

not what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

As per the claim statement the claimant Manoj Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Smt Premwati and Meenu Kumari are

the legal A/Rs of some ex-employees of the management as described in the table appended at the bottom of this

award. After the death of their predecessors these claimants made an application requesting compassionate

appointment. They were given compassionate appointment from the date as mentioned in the table referred above.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2159

However, there appointment is on daily wage basis. In fact they should have been appointed as regular field workers

since the persons through whom they were claiming the regular field worker. The deceased employees have left

behind the family liability and the claimants are shouldering the responsibility of their respective families. Though, as

per the policy of the mgt the compassionate appointment are to be made against regular post as per the direction of

DOPT in which the object of the compassionate appointment scheme is very clear that the mgt refused to appoint the

claimant against regular post which amount to unfair labour practice and injustice meted to the claimants. All their

representations made in this regard were not considered. Fining no other way they raised a dispute before the

conciliation officer but the conciliation failed and the claimant’s grievance was referred to this tribunal for

adjudication.

The mgt being noticed appeared and filed objection stating therein that the claim in not maintainable and the

same is nothing but an abuse of process. It has been stated that the Govt. vide notification issued by DOPT has limited

the compassionate appointment to 5% of the regular vacancies occurring in a year. For the huge number of application

received, the mgt as a good gesture has notified a policy to employee one of the legal Hear of the deceased employee

on contract basis. There is no policy for regularization of the said employee employed in contract basis. The earlier

circular was issued on 11.10.2007 and the same was replaced by circular dated 16.12.2008. According to this circular

one of the family members of the deceased shall be appointed on contractual basis for class 4^th post with the prevailing

minimum wage and the appointment shall be extendable for 5 years. These claimants were appointed on the basis of

the said circular. Hence, there appointment is on daily wage basis and their prayer for absorption to regular cadre is

not maintainable.

On these rivals pleadings the following issues framed:

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable?

2. Whether the workmen are entitled to regular appointment on compassionate ground?

3. To what relief the workmen are entitled to?

On behalf of the claimants Sh. B.K Prasad the president of MCD Gen. Mazdoor union testified as the

authorized representative. He filed few documents marked as Exht. WW1/1 to Exht. WW1/5. The document WW1/1

is the list of the workmen appointed on compassionate ground, WW1/2(colly) are the appointment letters of the

claimants , WW1/3 is the policy of DOPT for compassionate appointment.

On the basis of these documents and the oral statement adduced by WW1 who has not been cross examined

by the mgt. The Ld. A/R for the claimants submitted that as per the circular of DOPT when an employee working

against a regular post dies in harness one of his family members shall be appointed against a regular post. But the mgt

in gross violation of the said circular subjected to the claimants to unfair labour practice by appointing them as

contractual daily wagers.

This evidence has not been contradictory by the mgt in any manner by adducing rebuttal evidence. Hence,

from the unchallenged evidence on record it is concluded that the claimants are entitled to the relief sought for. Hence

ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimants whose names have been mentioned in

the list annexed to this award. It is held that the mgt of NDMC in denying regular appointment to the claimants on

compassionate ground is unfair and illegal. It is further directed that the mgt shall make their services regular w.e.f

their initial appointment and grant them all benefits including salary, leave etc. The mgt is further directed to

implement this award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award, failing which the party is at liberty of

getting the order executed and claiming interest @3 % on the financial entitlements from the date of accrual and till

the payment is made. The list of the claimants is attached herewith as annexure –A:-

List of the workmen

Sl. No.

Name of the workers

Father’s Name of the workers

Designation

Manoj Kumar

Randhir Singh

Field worker

Vijay Kumar Vats

Umesh Kumar

Field worker

Smt. Premwati

W/o Ganga Ram

Field worker

Meenu Kumari

D/o Ishwar Singh

Field worker

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID act

1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

2160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 19 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1079.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार आयुि (दवक्षण), दवक्षणी ददल्ली नगर वनगम, ममंटो रोड, ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री संदीप

यादि एिं 251 अन्द्य, द्वारा - महासवचि, नगरपावलका कमाचारी, तीस हजारी, ददल्ली, के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 140/2021) को जैसा दक

अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.06.2023 को प्राप्त

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/42/2021 -आई आर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2023

S.O. 1079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 140/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Commissioner (South), South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Minto Road, Delhi, and Shri Sandeep Yadav & 251

Ors.,through The General Secretary, Municipal Employees,Tis Hazari, Delhi, which was received along with soft

copy of the award by the Central Government on 02.06.2023.

[No. L-42011/42/2021 -IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 140/2021

Date of Passing Award- 26^th May, 2023

Between:

Shri Sandeep Yadav & 251 Ors.

Rept. By General Secretary, Municipal Employees

Union, Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054

….Workmen

Versus

The Commissioner (South)

South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Dr. S.P.

Mukharjee Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Marg,

Minto Road, Delhi-110002

Management

Appearances:-

Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Ld. A/R for the claimant.

Shri R.K Bhardwaj, Ld. A/R for the management.

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. The Commissioner (South)South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Dr. S.P and its

workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42011/42/2021 IR(DU)) dated 05.08.2021 to this tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect.

“1. Whether the action of the management of South Delhi Municipal Corporation(SDMC) in

employing Sh. Sandeep yadav & 251 Others (list attached) as casual or temporary and to

continue them as such from year 2010 to 2016 to till date, as raised by Municipal Employees

Union vide letter dated 07.11.2020 is proper, legal and justified? If yes, then for what reliefs the

workers are entitled to? What directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2161

2. Whether demand for payment of all arrears of difference of salary on the principle of Équal

pay for Equal Work’ for the period from 2010 to 2016 to till date to Sh. Sandeep Yadav 7 251

others (list attached) with all consequential benefits thereof, as raised by Municipal Employees

Union vide letter dated 07.11.2020 is fair, legal and justified? If yes, then for what reliefs the

workers are entitled to? What directions, if any, are necessary in the matter?”

As per the claim statement, the mgt SDMC (now merged with MCD) had issued advertisement for filling up the

vacancies of field workers and pursuant to the advertisements made in the year 2010, 2013 and 2015 the workmen

concerned with this proceeding had submitted their applications for consideration of their candidature. The mgt, for

selection of the candidates, had constituted a proper Selection Board. The claimants and other candidates had

appeared before the said Board and went through the selection procedure. Being successful in the said procedure, the

claimants (as per the list attached) were selected by the Board and after proper police verification, medical test etc.

they were appointed on different dates, in the post of malaria field workers as contractual employees, though the work

of malaria filed workers is of permanent nature and a large number of such posts are still lying vacant with the mgt.

After their appointment the mgt was paying them a lump sum amount as monthly salary which was revised from time

to time by the mgt. There are also permanent field workers employed by the mgt and the said permanent field workers

are performing the identical nature of work as that of the present claimants and getting their remuneration in the

prescribed pay scale along with allowances such as transport allowance, HRA, Cycle allowance, washing allowance

etc. In addition to that, the said permanent field workers are also getting the benefits of medical leave casual leave etc.

But the claimants are not getting the same. The North Delhi Municipal Corporation has also employed contractual

filed workers and paying them Rs. 8000/- and DA towards their monthly salary whereas the claimants are getting

Rs.12,950 per month. The claimants of this proceeding as a part of their duty are discharging the manual work for

eradication of malaria which includes spray of insecticides in drains and ponds, etc., fogging with hand operated

fogging machine and de-weeding of ponds and drains etc. Considering the perennial nature of work discharged by

them, the mgt is extending their contracts varying from three to six months only at a time. During this extension of

contract, the mgt has been giving two days artificial break which exists only on paper and not in actual. These

workmen had performed exemplary work during the covid-19 pandemic to restore the health condition of the citizens.

The mgt in an unfair mode has taken several undertakings from the claimants containing some illegal clauses.

According to these undertakings the mgt made the claimants to agree on the condition that they will not claim

regularization of service, conveyance allowance etc. and they will be entitled to one day off in a weak only. The

claimants were often demanding regularization of their services with retrospective effect and grant of equal pay for

equal work and other benefits as admissible to the regular field workers employed by the mgt. But the mgt did not

consider the demands. The mgt has not framed any Rule or Regulation governing the service condition of contractual

field workers. Hence, the model standing order framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act 1946,

are applicable to them. According to this Standing Order, the claimants have acquired the status of permanent

employee on the date they completed 90 days of continuous service. Even otherwise, for working continuously for

240 days in an establishment, their service is required to be regularized. Describing the action of the mgt in employing

the claimants as casual or contractual workers for years together, as an unfair labour practice, the claimants have

prayed for an award to be passed in their favour directing the mgt to regularize their service against the vacant posts of

field workers with retrospective effect from their respective initial date of joining, allow them the pay of regular field

workers on the principle of equal pay for equal work, arrear of the same, consequential benefits and cost of litigation.

It has been stated that the claimants had approached the conciliation officer for redressal of their grievance. But

for the failure of the conciliation, the appropriate Govt. referred the matter for adjudication.

The Mgt being noticed, filed written statement challenging the maintainability on the ground that no demand

notice was served on the mgt before raising the Industrial Dispute. Moreover they were appointed as contractual

workers and as such do not meet the definition of the workman defined under section 2(S) of the ID Act. It has been

further pleaded that the claimants were appointed as contractual employees and this fact was very well known to them

form the initial date of appointment. It is within their knowledge that their appointment is contractual and for a period

of six month or till such time the posts are filled up on regular basis. It was within their knowledge that no benefits of

provident fund, pension, gratuity, medical allowances and seniority etc. would be available to them. The claimants

having ample knowledge about the terms of their appointment had accepted the letter of appointment. Hence the

present claim is not maintainable and their services cannot be regularized in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in various cases including the case of Secretary state of Karnatka vs. Uma devi. The post of regular

field workers is generally filled through the appropriate agency that is DSSSB which conduct the exam and

recommends the eligible candidates to the mgt for regular appointment. While denying that illegal undertakings are

being taken from the claimants the mgt has pleaded before dismissal of the claim as not maintainable.

The claimants flied rejoinder denying the assertions made by the mgt in the W.S It has been added that the

claimants, though initially appointed for a period of six month, their employment got extended from time to time

which proves that they are discharging perennial nature of work. Not only that there are huge number of vacant posts

of malaria filed workers in the establishment of the mgt. Hence, the relief sought for be granted to them.

2162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.

Issues

1. Whether the proceeding is maintainable and the claimants are workmen define u/s 2(S) of the ID Act.

2. Whether there exist employer and employee relationship between the claimant and the management.

3. Whether the demand raised by the claimant for equal pay of equal work and regularization in service is

justified.

4. To what relief the claimants are entitled to.

One of the claimants namely, Sh. Dhyanendra S/o Sishpal Singh testified as ww1. He produced the documents

marked in a series of ww1/1 to ww1/5(colly).In addition to that Surender Bhardwaj the General Secretary of

Municipal employee Union testified as ww2 to prove that the dispute was espoused properly by the union. These two

witnesses were cross examined at a length by the mgt. On behalf of the mgt, it’s administrative officer Rakesh Ravat

was examined as Mw1. No document was filed by the mgt. But during cross examination of the witnesses, he was

confronted with few documents by the A/R for the claimants and the said documents were marked as mw1/w1,

mw1/w2 and mw1/w3. These documents relate to the information of the vacant posts of malaria workers in the

establishment of the mgt obtained through RTI.

At the outset of the argument the Ld. A/R for the mgt by drawing attention of the Tribunal to the Constitution

Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnatak vs. Uma Devi, (2006)4SCC1

submitted that regularization of service of casual and contractual employees stands opposed to the scheme of public

employment guaranteed under the Constitution of India. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of ONGC vs. Krishan Gopal reported in MANU/SC/0141/2020 and the case of NDMC vs.

Vandana & Others decided by the Hon’ble High Court or Delhi in LPA no. 112/2021 and submitted that the law is

well settled that the power of a labour court or Industrial Tribunal do not extend to order regularization in the context

of public employment as the said order would offend the provision of article 14 of the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, the Ld A/R for the claimants Mr. Agarwal while relying on various judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court including the case of Chief Conservator of Forests & Anr. Vs. Jagannath Maruti

Kondhare & Ors, (1996) 2 SCC 293, Project Dir, Dept of Rural Development vs. its workmen, 2019 SCC

Online Del7796 submitted that the action of the mgt which is expected to be a model employer, amounts to unfair

labour practice and the claimants are entitled to regularization of their service. He also argued extensively on the

principle of equal pay for equal work and submitted that these workmen are working since long but are deprived of

their due remuneration and on that ground only the claim advanced by them should be allowed. He also submitted that

the claimants were selected through a due procedure pursuant to advertisement of vacancies but appointed as

contractual employees. The principle decided in the case of Uma Devi referred supra does not apply to them.

Findings

Issue no. 1

The mgt has challenged the maintainability of the proceeding on two grounds. That the claimants are not

workmen as per the definition under section 2(S) of the ID Act. It is also argued by the mgt that the dispute has not

been espoused by the union and as such it cannot be treated as an Industrial Dispute. To this the Ld. A/R for the mgt

submitted that the witness examined as ww2 who is none but the General Secretary of the Municipal Employees

Union has clearly stated about the espousal of the dispute by the Union and the claimants including ww1 are the

members of the said union. This statement of the witness has not been discredited in any manner by the mgt. On

behalf of the claimants, reliance has been placed in the case of J.H Jhadav vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd. AIR2005SC998,

and argument was advanced to state that when the cause of the claimants has been espoused by the union, it would be

wrong to state that the proceeding is not maintainable for want of espousal. He also argued that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the said judgment have held that for espousal, there is no particular form prescribed to effect such espousal.

The union, when expresses itself in the form of a resolution, and if the same is proved, it should be held that there was

espousal of the claimants’ cause. It this case, the oral evidence of ww2 coupled with the documents marked as ww1/ 4

having the list of the members as annexure A clearly proves that the cause of the claimants was espoused by the union

and a resolution to that effect was passed. Hence, it is held that the proceeding is maintainable for the proper espousal

of the cause. The other objection taken by the mgt is that the claimants were appointed as contractual workers and as

such they are not covered under the definition of workmen provided under section 2(S) of the ID Act. This argument

of the Ld. A/R of the mgt does not sound convincing since the said provision nowhere keeps out the contractual

workers from out of the definition of workman. Hence it is held that the objections taken by the mgt with regard to the

maintainability is not correct and the issue is accordingly decided in favour of the claimants.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2163

Issue no. 2 & 3

In the w.s. the mgt has not specifically denied the employer and employee relationship between the mgt and the

claimants. The only objection is that they are contractual employees and as per the terms of their employment they

cannot claim regularization. On the other hand on behalf of the claimant it is has been argued that the claimants have

worked continuously for a period of more than 5 years in the establishment of the mgt. Many of them were appointed

in the year 2010 and others during the year 2013 and 2015. All of them were appointed through the selection process

conducted by the Board constituted by the mgt. It is the further case of the claimants that since the initial date of their

joining they are working continuously and discharging the permanent nature of work. But the mgt omitted to

regularize their services despite having huge number of vacancies. The oral evidence of WW1, who is one of the

claimants and whose evidence has been adopted by the remaining claimants, clearly proves that the

claimants/workmen are working in the establishment of the mgt.

The mgt examined one Rakesh Ravat the Administrative Officer (Public Health) as mw1. During cross

examination the said witness stated in clear terms that the mgt has no dispute with regard to the details of the

claimants as mentioned in annexure A filed with the claim petition. He also admitted that the claimants were

employed pursuant to an open advertisement followed by a selection process conducted by the designated Board to

find out the suitability of the candidates. He also admitted that the details of the claimants as mentioned in annexure A

are correct. His further admission is that these claimants are working against the vacant posts of field workers,

carrying the regular pay scale but getting the wage as per the minimum wage notified by the Govt. The witness also

admitted during cross examination that the claimants are discharging the similar nature of duty and responsibility as

discharged by the regular field workers and they are working for 8 hours a day. When asked, as to why the claim of

regularization advanced by the claimants has not been considered, the witness of the mgt explained that these regular

vacant pots are to be filled up by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board. On the basis of this evidence Mr.

Agarwal the Ld. A/R for the mgt argued that the mgt, in order to deprive the claimant of their law full rights is

intentionally making them to work as contractual employees, even though there are vacancies in the cadre to

accommodate all the claimants of this proceeding. He drew the attention of the Tribunal to the documents marked as

mw1/w3 which is the information received by the claimants under the RTI. This document was confronted to the mgt

witness. According to this information, the SDMC has a vacancy of 352 post in the cadre of field workers and there is

no difference between the contractual and regular field workers so far as the nature of work is concerned and there is

no Regulation, regulating the service condition of the contractual field workers, who come under the category of

unskilled workers. The mgt witness, though at one point of cross examination stated that the regular vacancies of

malaria filed workers are to be filled through the DSSSB, at the other point admitted that not a single person has so far

been appointed as field workers through DSSSB. On the basis of this, the Ld. A/R for the claimants submitted that the

claimants/workmen discharging similar nature of work with the regular counterparts are being subjected to

discrimination and unfair labour practice as the mgt is not paying them the proper salary, benefits and status of regular

employees.

Now it is to be seen if the claimants of this proceeding were subjected to unfair Labour Practice or not. “Unfair

Labour Practice” as defined u/s 2(ra) means any of the practice specified in the 5^th Schedule of the ID Act. Under the

said 5^th Schedule, to employee workmen as Badlis, Casual or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with

the object of depriving them of the status and privilege of permanent workmen amounts to unfair Labour Practice. In

this case the documents and the oral evidence as adduced by the claimant clearly prove that they are working

continuously for five years or more as contractual workers, but not getting the wage and privilege at par with the

regular field workers. In the case of Chief Conservator of Forests & Anr. Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare &

Ors, (1996) 2 SCC 293 [Para-22, 26-29] and Project Dir. Dep of Rural Development vs. Its Workmen, 2019

SCC OnLine Del 7796[Para 28 &29] the Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly held when the employees accepted

the employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wage and will not get the same salary and

condition of service at par with the regular counterparts, they cannot provide an escape to the employer to avoid the

mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus it is concluded that the mgt by denying

equal pay for equal work to the claimants on the pretext that they accepted the job knowing fully well the service

condition of the job subjected them to unfair Labour Practice which need to be remedied.

The Ld A/R for the Mgt strenuously argued that the law and the policy of public employment does not permit

regularization of the service of the contractual employees against regular posts. He also submitted that any action in

this regard shall put the mgt under heavy financial burden. To support his stand he placed reliance in the case of

Secretary State of Karnatak and others vs. Uma Devi and others reported in (2006)4 SCC Page 1. On behalf of

the claimants objection was raised regarding the applicability of the judgment of Uma Devi referred Supra to

Industrial Dispute relating to unfair labour practice.

In the case of Uma Devi the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the persons who were appointed on

temporary and casual basis without following proper procedure cannot claim absorption or regularization, since the

same is opposed to the policy of public employment. But in this case as claimed by the claimants and admitted by the

mgt witness the claimant were appointed pursuant to an open advertisement and through a proper selection process

2164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

conducted by the designated Board. Hence, it is to be examined if the principle decided in the case of Uma Devi

deprives the claimants of their right for regularization.

The effect of the constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi came up for

consideration with reference to unfair labour practice by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahrashtra State

Road Transport and Another vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sangathan reported in (2009)8 SCC

Page 556 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court came to hold that the judgment in the case of Uma Devi has not over

ridden the powers of Industrial and Labour Courts for passing appropriate order, once unfair labour practice on the

part of the employer is established. The judgment of Uma Devi does not denude the Industrial and Labour Court of

their statutory power.

Besides the case of Maharashtra Road Transport referred supra the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Shri

Ajay Pal Singh vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation decided in the Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2014 disposed of

on 09^th July 2014 have held that:-

“The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the powers of the Industrial and labour Courts provided therein

were not at all under consideration in Umadevi’s case. The issue pertaining to unfair labour practice was neither the

subject matter for decision nor was it decided in Umadevi’s Case.”

Thus, after going through the judgments of Maharashtra Road Transport and Ajay Pal Singh referred supra it is

held that the observation made in the case of Uma Devi has no applicability to the facts of the present case where the

workmen have been subjected to unfair labour practice being engaged for work on temporary basis for a prolong

period.

The witness examined on behalf of the mgt has stated that the post of regular field workers are requested to be

filled by DSSSB, but so far ,the said post have not been filled up. The information obtained by the claimants under

RTI and the oral evidence of mw1, clearly establishes that there are still vacancies in the regular cadre of field workers

in the mgt. Though under the scope of the reference, this Tribunal is to adjudicate about the legality and justification

of the demand raised by the union with regard to the action of the mgt allowing the claimants to work as contractual

employees, the industrial adjudicator under the Industrial Dispute Acts enjoys wide power for granting relief which

would be proper under a given circumstances. In the case of Hari Nandan Prasad and Another vs. Employer I/R to

Management FCI reported in (2014)7SCC 190 the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the power conferred

upon Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court by the Industrial Dispute Act is wide. The Act deals with Industrial

Dispute, provides for conciliation, adjudication and settlement and regulates the right of the parties and the

enforcement of the Awards and the settlement. Thus, the Act empowers the adjudicating authority to give relief which

may not be permissible in common law or justified under the terms of the contract between the employer and the

workman. While referring to the judgment of Bharat Bank Limited vs. Employees of the Bharat Bank Limited

reported in (1950) LLJ 921 Supreme Court the court came to hold that in setting the dispute between the employer

and the workmen, the function of the Tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in accordance with law. It

can confer rights and privileges on either party which it consider reasonable and proper, though those may not be

within the terms of any existing agreement. It can create new rights and obligations between them which it considers

essential for keeping industrial peace.

Here is a case, where the mgt had admitted the long and continuous employment of the claimants in it’s

establishment being selected through a procedure. It is also an admitted state of fact that the mgt is having huge

number of vacancies in the regular cadre of field workers and till date none of those posts have been filled through

DSSSB. In such a situation, the claim of the claimants for regularization of their service with all consequential

benefits seems justified. They are also found entitle to equal pay for equal work for the reason that they are

discharging the similar nature of work as that of the regular filed workers and as stated by MW1, they are working in

the field for 8 hours a day. On behalf of the claimants reliance has been placed in the case of Dhirender Chamuli vs.

state of U.P, 1986-1,SCC,637 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court have clearly held that:-

“It is difficult to understand how the Central Government can deny to these employees the same salary and

conditions of service as Class IV employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. It is peculiar on the part of

the Central Government to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras Knowing fully

well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim more. This argument lies ill in the mouth

of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a Welfare State

committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered

that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take

employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted

employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and

conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the

mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there shall be equality

before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for

work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and

who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2165

conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference, whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or

not. So long as they are performing the same duties they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as

Class IV employees.”

In view of the principle laid down in the case of Dhirender Chamuli by the Hon’ble SC ,it is difficult to accept

the objection of the mgt wherein it has been stated that the claimants since had accepted the terms of their

appointment as contractual employees, they cannot claim equal pay at par with the regular employees. It is necessary

to deal with the objection of the mgt saying that regularization would create heavy financial burden on the mgt. The

mgt being the employer, is duty bound to pay the appropriate remuneration to the persons employed by it and the right

for appropriate remuneration in lieu of their service is a constitutional right of a citizen. In the case of Chief

Conservator of Forests & Anr. Vs. Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & Ors, (1996) 2 SCC 293 the Hon’ble Supreme

Court have held that the right to back wages or minimum wage or fair wage flows automatically from the relief of

regularization to which no objection reasonably be taken. The financial strain on the state exchequer cannot be a

ground for consideration when the workmen held entitled to permanency or for higher pay.

In this case, as observed in the preceding paragraph, the workmen have been victimized on account of unfair

labour practice meted to them, since the mgt in spite of having vacancies in the permanent cadre made them to work

as contractual employees for years together on a consolidated salary and by denying the other consequential benefits

of the regular employees. Keeping the situation in view, it is felt proper to issue a direction to the mgt to regularize the

services of the claimants/workmen from the date of their initial appointment against the posts of permanent field

workers and extend the consequential service benefits to them which would meet the ends of justice. This direction is

specific in respect of the workmen of this claim petition as per the list annexed to the Award. These two issues are

accordingly answered in favour of the claimants.

Issues no. 4

In view of the findings and conclusion arrived in respect of issues no 2 & 3, it is held that the claimants are

entitled to be regularized in the post of permanent field workers from the date of their initial appointment along with

arrears of different salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work and all other consequential Service benefits.

Hence ordered

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimants/workmen. It is held that the action of the

mgt in employing the claimants as contractual field workers despite having vacancies in the said permanent cadre is

illegal, unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice as the workmen are working for the Mgt for a pretty long

period as contractual workers. The mgt is hereby directed to regularize the service of the individual workmen of this

proceeding with effect from the date of their initial appointment as permanent field workers and grant them the salary

of the permanent field workers from the date of their initial appointment. The Mgt is further directed to implement this

direction within 2 months from the date of publication of the Award and fix their pay and allow them the

consequential service benefits applicable to the permanent field workers from the date of their initial appointment. The

monetary entitlements on regularization including the arrear pay, accrued in favor of the individual workmen shall be

paid by the mgt within three months from the date of publication of the Award without interest failing which, the

amount shall carry interest at the rate of 3% per annum from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made.

The list of the workmen is attached herewith as annexure-A:-

List of the Workmen

Sl.

No.

Name & Father’s/

Husband Name

Date of

Appointment

Post & place of posting &

Bio Metric I.D. No.

Residential Address & Aadhar

Card No.

Sandeep Yadav S/o

Sh. Jaipal Singh

04.08.2015

C.F.W. SDMC, Najafgarh

Zone, Ward No. 48-S,

Bijwasan (B.M. No.

15022636)

H.No. 19, Near Raghubir

NamberdarGali, KanganHeri,

South-West, Delhi-71. Aadhar

Card No. 698469565819

Amar Yadav S/o Sh.

Balwan Singh

07.10.2013

C.F.W. SDMC Najafgarh

Zone, Ward No . 42-S. (B.M.

No. 15018176)

H.No. 637, Vill. Mundka, Near

Mother Dairy Delhi-41. Aadhar

Card No. 494526658012

Praveen Kumar S/o

Sh. Vikram singh

19.10.2016

C.F.W., SDMC, West Zone,

Ward No. 24-S, Baprola. B.M.

No. 40000163

H.No. FZ-18, Laxmi Park,

Nangloi, Delhi-41. Aadhar Card

No. 660934163325.

Naveen Yadav S/o

Sh. Vikram Yadav

01.09.2010

C.F.W. SDMC, West Zone,

Ward No. 09/S, Subhash

Nagar (B.M.I.D. 15014461)

H. No. 47-A, Extn.-2-C, Nangloi,

Delhi-41 Aaddhar Card No.

773389449654.

Rajesh Kumar S/o

Sh. Mahipal Singh

04.09.2010

C.F.W. South Zone, Ward No.

66-S, (B. M. No.

10093475 New I.D. No

H.No. 817, Ambedkar Basti, R.K.

Puram, Sec-1, New Delhi-22

Aadhar Card No. 286826419761.

2166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

40002468)

Pramod Kumar S/o

Sh. Vijender Singh

04.09.2010

C.F.W. Ward No. 64 (s), B,

Nanak Pura, South Zone

(B.M. No.

10093445)

H.NO. 843, Ambedkar Basti, R.K.

Puram, Sec-1, New Delhi-22.

Aadhar Card No. 645029626303.

Ravinder Singh S/o

Sh. Sohan Singh

04.09.2010

C.F.W., SDMC, Ward no. 65-

S, R.K. Puram, Sec-1, South

Zone (B.M. No.

10093446/40002501)

H.No. 972, Ambedkar Basti, R.K.

Puram, Sec-1, New Delhi-22.

Aadhar Card No. 389440181738.

Akash Gautam S/o

Sh. Dheeraj Kumar

18.09.2015

C.F.W., Ward No.65.-S, R.K.

Puram, South Zone, (B.M. No.

40002505)

H.No. B-963, Ambedkar Basti,

R.K. Puram, New Dehi-22, Aadhar

Card No. 783551215923.

Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.

Raj Singh

04.09.2010

C.F.W. Ward No. 66-S, South

Zone B.M. No. 10094573

(New No. 40002483)

H.No. 290, Ambedkar Basti, R.K.

Puram, Sec-1, Delhi-22. Aadhar

Card No. 212321345257.

Jagvinder S/o

Sh. Raj Singh

03.10.2012

C.F.W., Wad No. 64-B, Green

Park, South Zone, SDMC

(B.M. No. 15004600)

H.No. 15-I, Basnti Gaon, Koyale ki

Tall, Vasant Vihar, Delhi-57.

Aadhar Card No. 336388017913.

Manoj Saini S/o

Sh. Lekhraj Saini

04.10.2013

C.F.W. (Malaria Beldar),

Ward No. 64-S, B, Green

Park, South Zone, SDMC

(B.M. No. 15017610)

H.No. J-185, Prem Nagar-II, Gali

No.3, Kirari Suleman Nagar,

Delhi-86. Aadhar Card No.

840594152990.

Mukesh S/o

Sh.Chatter Singh

30.08.2016

C.F.W. Ward no. 13-S, Tilak

Nagar, B.M. No.

40000161

H.No. 26, Double Story, Tilak

Vihar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-18.

Aadhar Card No. 909732866623.

Deepak Sharma S/o

Sh.

Ramdayal Sharma

04.10.2013

C.F.W., Wad No. 64 S (B),

Nanak Pura, South Zone,

SDMC, B.M. No.

15017609

H.No. C-176, Bindaput-Pocket,

Uttam Nagar, Delhi-59. Aadhar

Card No. 427866500282

Izhar Alam S/o

Naseem Ahmed

20.09.2015

C.F.W., Ward No. 06-S,

Choukhandi, B.M. No.

15023352

H.No. D-1/444, Sultan Puri, New

Delhi-86. Aadhar Card No.

393131408290.

Rahul Chauhan S/o

Sh. Lt. Sh. Pushkar

Singh Chauhan

29.09.2014

C.F.W., Ward No. 08/S,

Khyala, B.M. No.

15020228

H.NO. 156, Dhakka Vill. Near

G.T.B. Nagar, Delhi-09. Aadhar

Card No. 425549235600.

Anil Kumar S/o

Sh. Mohar Pal

Singh

21.09.2015

C.F.W, Ward No. 01-S,

Madipur, West Zone, SDMC,

B.M. No. 40000752

H.No. N-21 A-3, Mouje Wala

Bagh, Lal Bagh, Azadpur, Delhi-

33. Aadhar Card No.

844887436303

Amit Panwar S/o

Sh. Naresh Panwar

04.10.2013

C.F.W. Ward No. 88 (S),

Chirag Delhi, South Zone,

SDMC, B.M. No. 15017628

H.NO. 303, Shah Pur, Jat, Delhi-

49. Aadhar Card No.

381886914809.

Dhanesh Kumar S/o

Sh. Ramu

03.09.2010

C.F.W., Ward No. 88 (S),

Chirag Delhi, South Zone,

SDMC

H.No. 30, Fateh Pur Beri, Dehi-74.

Aadhar Card No. 506824248623

Amit Sharma S/o

Sh. Kishan Sharma

04.09.2010

C.F.W., Ward No. 88 (S),

Chirag Delhi, South Zone,

SDMC , B.M. No. 10094516

H.No. 746, Chiragh Delhi, Malviya

NagarDelhi-17. Aadhar Card No.

425612327075.

Raj Singh S/o

Sh. Lallan Singh

07.10.2013

C.F.W, Ward no. 13-S, Tilak

Nagar, B.M. No. 15017247

H.No. W-176/113, T-Huts, Near

Fire Station, Kirti Nagar, Delhi-15.

Aadhar Card No. 793490016947

Anurag Singh S/o

07.10.2013

C.F.W., Ward No. 2-S,

H.No. A-107, 2nd Floor,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2167

Sh. Ramesh

Chander

Punjabi Bagh, West Zone,

SDMC, B.M. No. 15017248

Sudarshan Park, Moti Nagar,

Delhi-15. Aadhar Card No.

673878705201.

Pawan kumar S/o

Sh. Ram Pratap

06.09.2010

C.F.W., Ward No. 63 (S),

South Zone, B.M. No.

10093464

H.No. S-83/220-, Indra Camp,

Begum Pur, Malviya Nagar, Delhi-

17. Aadhar Card No.

542050835696

Md. Yusuf S/o

Lal Mohammad

04.09.2010

C.F.W., SDMC, West Zone,

Ward No. 05-S, Rajori

Garden, B.M. No.

10093477

H. No. WZ-61-A, Ram Garh

Colony, Gali No. 9, Basai Dara

Pur, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi-15.

Aadhar Card No. 219350955625

Sunny Kumar S/o

Sh. Shripal

04.09.2010

C.F.W., South Zone, Ward

No. 66-S, Munirka, B.M. No.

10093483

H.No. E-175, Kutub Vihar, Phase-

I, Goyala Dairy, New Delhi-71.

Aadhar Card No. 625429442822

Tapesh Solanki S/o

Sh. Kishan Swaroop

Solanki

06.09.2010

C.F.W., South Zone, Ward

No. 66-S, Munirka, B.M. No.

(New No. 40002466), (Old

No. 15014172)

H.No. V-112-A, Bhagwati Vihar,

Sec-D, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-

59. Aadhar Cared No.

361421361460

Titu Ram S/o

Sh. Mewa Ram

01.11.2010

C.F.W., South Zone, Ward

No. 66-S, Munirka, B.M. No.

40002442

H.No. WZ-146, Basai, Dara Pur,

Ramesh Nagar, Delhi-15. Aadhar

Card No. 561030352727

Pankaj Sorot S/o Sh.

Hari Kishan

04.09.2010

C.F.W., South Zone, Ward

No. 66-S, Munirka, B.M. No.

15004655

H. No. 86/A, Hauz Khas Vill.,

New Delhi-16. Aadhar Card No.

470957364877

Vikas S/o

Sh. Ramesh

18.09.2015

C.F.W., South Zone, Ward

No. 66-S, Munirka, B.M. No.

40002481

H. No. 138, Bhumya Wala Chowk,

Vill.-Bakoli, Delhi-36. Aadhar

Card No. 701802539273

Tarun Kumar S/o

Lt. Sh. Tejpal

04.09.2010

C.F.W., South Zone, Green

Park. B.M. No. 10094570

H.No. 1794, ParsadiGali, Kotla,

Mubarak Pur, Delhi-03. Aadhar

Card No. 583614057801

Kanwar Singh S/o

Lt. Sh. Dayaram

25.09.2015

C.F.W., Ward No. 97-S, Hari

Nagar SDMC, B.M. No.

40001685

H.No. 699, Mehlla, Mohalla,

Madanpur Khadar, Sarita Vihar,

Delhi-76. Aadhar Card No.

532733731185

Rajender Singh S/o

Lt. Sh. Sohan Lal

27.08.2010

C.F.W., SDMC, Central Zone,

Lajpat Nagar, Ward No.

15020099

Vill. Patwari, Post-Bisharak Distt-

Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P.-

203207. Aadhar Card No.

311644236594

Sushil Kumar S/o

Sh. Ram Raj

07.10.2013

C.F.W., SDMC, Central Zone,

Lajpat Nagar, B.M. No.

15020107

H.No. B-1096, J.J. Colony, Sarita

Vihar New Delhi-76. Aadhar Card

No. 935476042952

Dhramender S/oSh.

TakeshwarShah

14.11.2013

C.F.W, SDMC, Ward No.

103-S, Madanpur khaddar, J.J.

Colony, East, B.M. No.

15020083

H.No. 1489, Phase-III, Madan Pur,

Khadar Near Jaitpur Police Station,

Delhi-76. Aadhar card No.

671074568495

Vijay Kumar S/o

Sh. Parmod Kumar

03.10.2013

C.F.W., Ward No. 103-S,

Madanpur khaddar, J.J.

Colony, East, B.M. No.

15020070

H.No. 6, Gali No. 6, Jugmal Vill.

Roshan Nagar. Aadhar Card No.

416033876158.

Deepak S/o

Sh. Sant Lal

25.08.2010

C.F.W, Ward No. 103-S,

Madanpur khaddar, BM. NO.

15020062

H.No. 32 A, Khizra Bad,

BalmikiMohlla, New Firends

Colony, Delhi-25. Aadhar Card no.

364760966989.

2168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Manoj Halder S/o

Sh. Maha Nanda

27.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 103-S,

Madanpur khaddar, B.M. No.

15020032

H.No. 880, B-2, J.J. Colony,

Madan pur, Khadar, Delhi-76.

Aadhar Card No. 976052214062

Lakhan Kumar S/o

Sh. Bhoop Singh

14.09.2010

CFW, SDMC South Zone,

Green Park, BM. No.

10094570

H.No. 20/159, Dakshin Puri, New

Delhi-62. Aadhar Card No.

683014054178.

Raj Kumar S/o

Sh. Ram Bahor

15.09.2010

CFW, SDMC South Zone,

Green Park, BM. No.

10093195

H.NO. D-251, Ambedkar Nagar,

Sec-5, New Delhi-62. Aadhar Card

No. 571173390574

Joginder S/o

Sh. Rajpal

04.10.2013

Ward No. 26/S, Mohan

Garden, B.M. No. 15017614

H.No. 959, C-Block, Mangol Puri,

Near Bharat Ghar, Delhi-83.

Aadhar Card No. 775693032034

Satish Chand S/o

S.Pappu Singh

04.10.2013

SDMC South Zone, Green

Park, BM. No. 15017644

H. No A-75, Jawahar Park,

Khanpur, Delhi-62. Aadhar Card

No. 599642981222

Vikas Sejwal S/o Lt.

Sh. Ranbir Singh

04.10.2013

South Delhi, Green park, (81-

S), Khanpur, BM. No.

15017630

F-208, Lado Sarai New Delhi-30.

Aadhar Card No. 690413065746

Veer Pal S/o

Lt. Sh. Mahaveer

Singh

04.10.2013

South Delhi Green Park Zone,

BM. No. 15017643

H.No. A-75, Jawahar Park, Devli

Road, Khanpur, New Delhhi-62.

Aadhar Card No. 347475338331

Ashwani Kumar S/o

Sh. Radhey Shyam

04.10.2013

Ward No. 57 S, Lajpat Nagar,

B.M. No. 15019988

H. No. 105-C, IPGCL, Colony,

Viduty Vihar, Ring Road, Kilokari,

Bhogal, New Delhi-110014.

Aadhar Card No 878185415898

Harinder Sejwal S/o

Sh. Karamvir Singh

03.10.2012

South Zone, 62-S, Hauz Khaz,

Green Park, BM. No.

15004614

F.580, Lado Sarai New Delhi-30.

Aadhar Card No. 659355600187

Sanjay S/o

Sh. Lal Chand

14.09.2010

South Zone BM. NO.

10094577

H.No. G-II, 25, Madangir,

Ambedkar Nagar New Delhi-62.

Aadhar Card No. 552995994452

Jai Shiv Kumar S/o

Sh. Ram Gopal

Sagar

08.10.2015

CFW, Ward No. 58, S,

Kasturba Nagar, BM NO.

40001603

H.No. 2364, Gali Ravi Dass, Bazar

Sita Ram, Delhi-06. Aadhar Card

No. 990097730293.

Vinod Kumar S/o

Sh. Ram Singh

08.10.2012

CFW, Ward No. 26/S. Mohan

Garden, BM. NO.

15014431

H. No. 430, Sainik Enclave, Sec-2,

Gali No.4, Mohan Garden, Delhi-

59. Adhar Card no. 364735024559

Deepak S/o

Sh. Rishi Raj

03.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 60-S, Kotla

Mubarak Pur, Delhi-03, BM

No.

15020004

H.No. 220 , Near Animal Hospital,

Burari Vill, Delhi-84. Aadhar Card

No. 983418556628

Ravinder Kumar

S/o Sh. Babulal

04.09.2010

CFW, South Delhi, Green

park, BM. No. 10093459

H. No. J-II/109, Madangir New

Delhi-62. Aadhar Card No.

831740700157

Badloo Ram S/o Sh.

Lt. Sh. Dataram

03.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 60 (s), Kotla

Mubarak pur, BM No.

15020010

H.No. 1043, G. Block, Jhuggi,

Near MCD Primary School,

Jhangirpuri, Delhi-33. Aadhar Card

No. 715773448501

Karan Singh S/o

Sh. Naranyan Singh

07.08.2013

CFW- Malaria Beldar,

Food Hygiene (Malaria

Beldar) , Bm. No. 15020487

H. No. Q-27, Private Colony, Sri

Niwas Puri, New Delhi-66. Aadhar

Card No. 799507575967

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2169

Somvir S/o

Sh. Kishan Jeet

04.09.2010

CFW, South zone, 78-S,

Sangam Vihar, (B), BM. No.

10094575

H. No. J-88, Dakishin Puri, New

Delhi. Aadhar Card no.

430453303000

Naresh S/o

Sh. Sita Ram

09.08.2016

CFW, South Zone, (78-S,

Sangam Vihar), BM. No.

40002533

H. No. A-19, Kewal park, Neta Ji

Marg, Azad Pur, Delhi-33. Aadhar

Card no. 431836269459

Nardev Singh S/o

Sh. Amar Chand

07.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 95-S

Badarpur, BM. No 15020061

Vill. Kalwaka, Dhtir, Distt. Palwal,

Haryana-121102. Aadhar Card no.

975535930638

Hemraj S/o

Sh. Mahipal

2010

CFW, Ward No. 95 Badarpur ,

BM No.

15020071

Luhar Mohalla Kalwaka, Dhatir

Palwal, Haryana-121102. Aadhar

card No. 295840637149

Rameshwer S/o

Sh. Kallu Ram

26.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 98-S, Jaitpur,

BM No. 15020065

H.No. 78, Mohala Saraiya, Near

Shiv Mandir, Khambi, Palwal,

Haryana-121106. Aadhar Card No.

359445514172

Ashok Nagar S/o

Sh.Tikamsingh

01.09.2010

Ward No. 96-S, Molarband,

BM No. 15020118

H.No. III- Molarband Vill.

Badarpur, New Dehli-44. Aadhar

Card No. 646501581604

Mukesh Kumar S/o

Sh. Roop Chand

25.08.2010

Ward No. 100-S, B.M. No.

15020100

H.NO. 75, Sarai Julena, Jamia

Nagar, South Delhi-25. Aadhar

Card No. 680818203957

Surjeet Saini S/o Sh.

Bir Singh

25.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 95-S,

Badarpur, B.M NO. 15020097

H.No. 240/2, Fatehpur, Billoch,

Faridabad, Haryana-121004. Adhar

Card No. 510393869082

Manju Singh S/o

Sh. Nanak Chand

26.08.2010

CFW, 96-S, Molarband, BM.

No. 15020106

H.No. Vill. Kalwaka, Distt. Palwal,

Haryana-121102, Aaddhar Card

No. 490147964300

Ishak S/o

Sh. Buddha

27.08.2010

CFW, 85-S, Sangam Vihar,

BM No. 15020090

H.No. Nangla Mohalla, Vill.

Kalwaka, Distt. Palwal, Haryana-

121102. Aadhar Card No.

716139634343

Vinod Kumar S/o

Sh. Ami chand

25.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 88-S, Chirag

Delhi, BM No.

15020106

H.No. 228, Maidan Garhi Village,

New Delhi-68. Aadhar Card No.

768084227475

Shiv kumar S/o

Sh. Ram Partap

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 88-S, Chirag

Delhi, BM No.

10093480

H.NO. T-220, T-Huts, Begumpur,

Malviya Nagar South Delhi-17,

Aadhar Card No. 982196632169

Anil Bhadana S/o

Sh. Dhan Singh

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 94-S,

Pehladpur, BM No.

15020053

H.No. Vill. Pawta, Faridabad,

Haryana-121004. Aadhar Card

No. 861695661934

Puneet Bhadana S/o

Sh. Mangal Singh

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 94-S,

PulPehladpur, BM No.

15020039

H. No. Vill. Pawta, Faridabad,

Haryana-121004. Aadhar Card

No. 684598676544

Rakesh Shah S/o

Sh. Girish shah

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 98-S, Jaitpur,

BM No. 15020066

H.No. 60, Gali No. 2/A, Ekta

Vihar, Meethapur, Extn, Delhi-44.

Aadhar Card No. 305799513075

Sunil Dutt S/o

Sh. Sohan Lal

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 96-S,

Molarband, BM No. 15020117

H.NO. Vill. KalwakaDhatir (37),

Distt. Palwal, Haryana-121102,

Aadhar Card No. 875550371267

2170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Jitender S/o

Sh. Kale Singh

15.09.2014

CFW, Ward No. 96-S,

Molarband, BM No.

15020480

H.No. 57/1, Numbardar Colony,

Sehatpur, Faridabad, Haryana-

121013. Aadhar Card No.

353273286188

Dhyanendra S/o Sh.

Shishpal Singh

16.09.2014

CFW, Ward No. 98-S, Jaitpur,

BM No.

15020482

H.No. Vill., Kadura, P.O Salon

(B), Distt., Datia M.P-475336.

Aadhar Card No. 241417765818

Saurabh Bhardwaj

s/o

Sh. Mahavir Sharma

15.09.2014

CFW, Ward No. 96-S,

Molarbaand, BM No.

15020479

H.No. 31, Gali No. 12, Molarband

Extn., Badarpur, Delhi-44. Aadhar

Card No. 769821708755

Deepak S/o

Sh. Mohan Lal

19.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 95-S,

Badarpur, BM No.

40001665

H.No. 13 Vill- Kanwara,

Faridabad, Haryana-121101.

Ruby W/o sh. Sunil

Kumar

07.10.2013

Ward No. 98 Jaitpur, BM No.

15018055

H.NO. D-25/2, Gali No. 2, Hari

Nagar, Badarpur, South Delhi-44.

Aadhar Card No. 313233671287

Deepak S/o

Sh. Jagdish

26.08.2010

Ward No. 85-S, Sangam

Vihar, BM No. 15920086

H.No. D-362-A, Krishna Park,

Khanpur, New Delhi-62. Aadhar

Card No. 479435578619

Ashish Kumar S/o

Sh. Jitendra Kumar

04.10.2013

Ward No. 85-S, Sangam

Vihar, BM No. 15020085

H.No. G-1-37, Gali No. 8, Main

Masjid WaliGali, Sangam Vihar,

Delhi-62.

Sunil Kumar S/o

Sh.Pyare Lal

19.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 94-S,

PulPehladpur, BM No.

40001660

H.No. Ladpur, Chhata, Mathura,

U.P-281401. Aadhar Card No.

956153823108

Prem Chand S/o Sh.

Raja Ram

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 98-S, Jaitpur

, BM. No. 15020101

H.NO. TransfarmerWaliGali, Rajiv

Nagar, Palwal, Haryana-121102,

Aadhar Card No 602382712575

Vijay Singh Rathore

S/o

Sh. Kadore Prasad

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 95-S,

Badarpur, BM No. 15920044

H.No. 222, Ward No.3, Chok

Mohalla Main Road, DabohDuda,

AndhiyariBhind, M.P-477447,

Aadhar Card no. 376027079253

Harish kumar S/o

Sh. Devi Lal

25.08.2010

Ward No. 89-S, SriniwasPuri

BM. NO. 15020113

H.No. 7B/12, Private Colony, Sri

Niwaspuri, South Delhi. Aadhar

Card No. 367857256774

Nand Kishor S/o Sh.

Duli Chand

2010

CFW, Ward No. 100-S, Zakir

Nagar , BM. No. 15020092

H.No 1029, Binduna Mohalla,

Near Ram Mandir, Khombi,

Palwal, Haryana-121106. Aadhar

Card No. 764520178774

Ajay S/o Sh. Kalyan

Singh

24.07.2015

CFW, Ward No. 94-S,

PulPehladpur, BM No.

40001661

Fatehpur, Billoch, Distt. Faridabad,

Haryana-121004. Aadhar Card No.

551992808469

Parveen S/o

Sh. Kamal Singh

19.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 94-S,

PulPehladpur, BM No.

40001663

H.No. S-32/272, Sonia Gandhi

Camp, Badarpur, New Delhi-44.

Aadhar Card No. 910507130805

Pardeep Kumar S/o

Sh. Suraj Prakash

23.07.2016

CFW, Ward No. 88 S, Chirag

Delhi, BM No. 40002580

H.no. 38-A, Gali No.1, Harjan

Basti, Neb Sarai, Maidan Garhi,

New Delhi-68, Aadhar Card No.

905398114256

Deepak Kumar S/o

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 85-S,

H.no. F-3/421, Gali No.4, Sangam

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2171

Sh. Niranjan lal

Sangam Vihar, BM No.

15020077

Vihar, Delhi-62. Aadhar Card no.

848163298639

Mohd. Imran S/o

Deen Mohd

19.09.2015

Ward No. 100-S, Zakir Nagar,

BM NO. 40001678

H.No. 2, Mehboob Nagar, Joga Bai

Extn., Okhla, South Delhi-25,

Aadhar Card No. 873782451522

Jagjeewan Lal

Suryawanshi S/o Sh.

Shyam Lal

Suryawanshi

18.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 97-S, Hari

Nagar BM. NO. 40001668

H.No. A-192, Bilashpur, Camp,

Molarband, Badarpur, New Delhi-

44, Aadhar Card No.

648761227783

Manoj Kumar S/o

Sh. Himmat Singh

21.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 98-S, Jaitpur,

BM NO. 40001671

H.No. 673, Gali No. 15, Lakhpat

Colony, Meethapur, Extn, South

Delhi-44, Aadhar Card No.

679449317737

Sonu Kumar Singh

S/o

Sh. Chandrma Singh

03.10.2013

CFW, Ward No 92-S, Harkesh

Nagar, BM No. 15020052

H.No. E-83, Harkesh Nagar, okhla,

Phase-II, New Delhi, Aadhar Card

No. 744117363560

Jai Bhagwan S/o Sh.

Babu Lal

26.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 89-s,

Sriniwaspuri, BM. No.

15020002

H.No. (Vill. Pakhaudana, Post

Office Uattasani, Thana Tappal,

Tehsil- Khair, Distt- Aligarh, U.P-

202165), Aadhar Card No.

365695738007

kuldeep S/o

Sh. Ishwar Chand

2013

CFW, Ward No. 91-S,

Govindpuri, BM No.

15017633

H.No. Badi Chaupal, Saukada

Mohalla, Fathepur, Beri, Delhi,

Aadhar Card No. 594761761135

Durgesh S/o

Sh. Hari Lal Sharma

22.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 91-S,

Govindpuri, BM No.

40001677

H.No. 162, Near BVN School,

Vill. Khambi, Distt-Palwal,

Haryana-121106, Aadhar Card No.

674053919807

Yogendera Yadav

S/o

Sh. Mam Pal Yadav

03.10.2012

CFW, Ward No. 90-S, Kalka

Ji, BM No.

15004663

Nanak Puliya, Vill. Khora,

Gaziabad, U.P-201309, Aadhar

Card No. 224973413733

Uday Veer S/o

Sh. Panna Lal

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 90-S, Kalka

Ji, BM No. 15020009

H.No. 18/261, Trilok Puri, New

Delhi-91, Aadhar Card No.

750621369898

Naveen Kumar

Prabhat S/o

Sh. Devender

Prasad

08.10.2015

CFW, Ward No. 90-S, Kalka

Ji, BM No. 40001624

H.NO. RZ-3291, G.No. 37,

Tughalkabad Extn., New Dehi-19,

Aadhar Card No. 819400675493

Manoj Yadav S/o

Sh. Mempal Yadav

25.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 89-S,

Sriniwas Puri, BM No.

15020017

H.NO. RC-308, Nanak Puliya,

Khora Gaon, Gaziabad. U.P-

201309, Aadhar Card No.

591729498523

Ranjan Babu S/o

Sh. Babu Lal

11.11.2013

CFW, Food Hygiene, Health

Store, Jal Vihar, L.P.N.

BM NO. 15020054

H.No. 4, Jangpura Road, Bhogal,

New Delhi-14, Aadhar Card No.

878770101362

Gaurav Awana S/o

Sh. Dhan Pal

Awana

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 97-S, Hari

Nagar, BM NO. 15020063

H.No. 83, Vill. Meethapur,

Badarpur, New Delhi-44, Aadhar

Card No. 882732679108

Fal Singh S/o

Sh. Khem Chand

15.09.2014

CFW, Ward No. 95-S,

Badarpur, BM No. 15020478

H.No. A-310, Chungi No.2, Lal

Kuan, Badarpur South Delhi-44,

Aadhar Card no. 796795110668

Jiya Ram S/o

Sh. Bhim Singh

04.10.2013

CFW, South zone, Ward

No.72-S, Bhati, BM. No.

H.No. 02, Asola Village, Fateh Pur

Beri, Hauz Khas Delhi-74, Aadhar

2172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15017639

Card no. 406297441289

Raj Kumar S/o

Sh. Rohtash

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 72-S, Bhati,

South Zone

H.No. 879, Near Shanidham, Asola

Vill. Fatehpur Beri, Mahrauli,

Delhi-74, Aadhar Card No.

823066594127

100

Naveen Yadav S/o

Sh. Ram Niwas

04.10.2013

C.F.W, Ward No 64 (S),

Nanak Pura, South Zone., BM.

No.

15017613

H.No. V.P.O. Gothra, Tappa Khori

(39), Kund, Rewari, Haryana-

123102, Aadhar Card No.

309639881656

101

Sunil Sharma S/o

Sh. Chetram

20.09.2015

C.F.W, Ward No. 05 (S),

Rajouri Garden (West-Zone),

BM. No.15023056

H.No. WZ-33/59, Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi- 27, Aadhar Card No.

300615097317

102

Nand Lal Mandal

S/o

Sh. Raju Mandal

04.09.2010

C.F.W, SDMC, Ward NO. 79,

Madan Giri, Green Park,

South Zone, BM No.

10093479

H.No. 19, Opp. Block-A- B,

Jhuggi, Dakshinpuri Camp,

Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi-62,

Aadhar Card No. 449771892027

103

Bablu Kumar S/o

Lt. Sh. Durga

Parsad

04.09.2010

C.F.W, SDMC, Green Park,

South Zone, BM. No.

10093483

H.No. D-77, Khanpur, Ambedkar

Nagar, J.J Colony, New Delhi-62,

Aadhar Card No. 983125828001

104

Manoj kumar S/o

Sh. Attar Singh

18.09.2015

C.F.W, South Zone, Ward

No.61-S.B, BM. No.

40002430

H.No. N-17-C/474, F-Block, J.J.

Colony, Ashok Vihar, Wazir Pur,

Delhi-52, Aadhar Card No.

458262845710

105

Parmod Kumar S/o

Sh. Babu Lal

06.09.2010

C.F.W, Ward No. 63 (S),South

Zone, BM. No. 150046422

H.No. 61-A, ,Gali No. 3, East

Laxmi Market, Near Life Line

Hospital, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-92.

Aadhar Card No. 753318171673

106

Sumit Kumar S/o

Sh. Virender Singh

04.10.2013

C.F.W, Ward No. 61-S (B),

South Zone, BM. No.

15017572

H.No 10/91, Vishnu Gali, Vishwas

Nagar, North East Delhi-32,

Aadhar Card No. 707869484521

107

Virender Yadav S/o

Sh. Mahesh Yadav

23.07.2016

C.F.W, Green Park, South

Zone, BM. No. 40002569

H.No. S-60/70, Jal Vihar Lajpat

Nagar, New Delhi-24, Aadhar Card

No. 201469448889

108

Sanjeev Barua S/o

Sh. Sudhir Ranjan

Barua

07.10.2013

C.F.W, Central Zone, Lajpat

Nagar, BM. No. 15020035

H.No. E-II/256, Dr. Ambedkar

Nagar, Sec-III, Madangir, New

Delhi-66, Aadhar Card No.

810719946058

109

Sushil Kumar S/o

Sh. Suresh Chand

01.08.2016

C.F.W, Ward No. 88-S,

Chirag Delhi, South Zone,

BM No. 40002581

H.NO. 10651, Pratap Nagar,

Metro Station, pratp Nagar, Sadar

Bazar-06, Aadhar Card No.

724161188488

110

Sandeep Kumar S/o

Sh. Jagdish Chander

07.10.2013

C.F.W, 14 (S), Mahavir

Nagar, BM. No. 15017243

H.No. 5/D-24, Vishnu Garden

Extn., New Delhi-18, Aadhar Card

No. 659434658808

111

Ankur S/o Sh.

Ram Meher

07.10.2013

C.F.W, Ward no. 13-S, Tilak

Nagar, BM. No. 15017252

H.No. 1753, SisanaTeh-Karkuada,

Sonipat, Haryana-131408, Aadhar

Card No. 556661017300

112

Dinesh Rajak S/o

Sh. Ganesh Rajak

14.05.2013

C.F.W, Ward No. 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM. No.

15014434

H.No. E-367, E-Block, J.J. Colony,

Inder Puri, New Delhi-12, Aadhar

Card No. 405216701388

113

Surender Singh S/o

Lt. Sh. Mahadev

07.10.2013

C.F.W, Ward No. 11-S, West

Zone, Hari Nagar SDMC, BM.

H.No. WZ-622, Nangal Raya, New

Delhi-46, Aadhar Card No.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2173

Prasad

No.

15017261

712935057303

114

Sunil Kumar S/o Sh.

Suresh Chand

24.09.2010

C.F.W, Ward No. 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM. No.

15014423

H.No. 18/21, Azad Nagar, Kishan

Ganj, Malka Ganj Delhi-07,

Aadhar Card No. 804161400398

115

Vinod S/o

Sh. Mahender Singh

07.10.2013

C.F.W, Ward No 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM. No.

15017262

H.No. Vill. Hajipur, Teh-Kotasim,

Distt- Alwar, Rajsthan-301702,

Aadhar Card No. 893122774584

116

Yogesh Kumar

Patodia S/o

Sh. Tara Chand

Patodia

07.10.2013

C.F.W, Ward No 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM. No.

15017251

H.No. WZ-1649, Nangal Raya,

New Delhi-46, Aadhar Card no.

461469613607

117

Dinesh Chander S/o

Sh. Ram Chander

20.09.2015

C.F.W, Ward No. 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM. No.

15023048

H.No. B/105, Near Police Station,

Harijan Basti, Seetapuri, Delhi-45,

Aadhar Card NO. 975056899900

118

Jitender Kumar S/o

Sh. Mahender Singh

07.10.2013

C.F.W, Ward No. 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM. No.

15018068

H.No. 214, Block-A, Shahbad

Dairy, PehladPur, Delhi-42,

Aadhar Card No. 733355443241

119

Nidhi D/o Sh.

Gopal Krishan

Sadana

22.09.2015

C.F.W, Ward No. 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM. No.

15023070

H.No. 15/56, Back Side, Subhash

Nagar, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-

27, Aadhar Card No.

506700968836

120

Ravi Kumar S/o

Sh. Satya Narayan

Rohilla

29.09.2014

C.F.W, Ward No. 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM. No.

15020226

H.No. WZ-1566, Nangal Raya

New Delhi-46, Aadhar Card No.

314658473325

121

Rajeev Kumar S/o

Sh. Naresh

21.09.2015

C.F.W, Ward No. 19-S,

Ranoola, BM. No. 15023058

H.No. Soldha (62), Soldha Jhajjar,

Haryana-124507, Aadhar Card No.

230925645314

122

Jai Deep S/o

Sh. Kali Ram

C.F.W, Ward No. 19-S,

Ranoola, BM. No.

15014426

H.No. Kharkhra (104), Kharkhara,

Rohtak, Haryana-124111, Aadhar

Card No. 909184000216

123

Ravinder Yadav S/o

Sh. Ragubir Yadav

24.09.2010

C.F.W, Ward No. 19-S,

Ranolla, BM. No

15004577

H.No. 140, Kamrudin Nagar,

Nangloi, Delhi-41, Aadhar Card

no. 33265573

124

Vikas S/o Sh.

Bhoop Singh

17.09.2014

C.F.W, Ward No. 19-S,

Ranoola, BM. No. 15020229

H.NO. Ghilaur Kalan, Jasia (82),

Rohtak, Haryana-124001, Aadhar

Card No. 735035525459

125

Shashikant

Vishwakarma S/o

Sh. Jiledar

Vishwakarma

21.09.2015

C.F.W, Ward No. 57-S

Central Zone, BM. No.

40001600

H.No. Kh No. 82-83, Gali No.

10/5, Block-D, Mukandpur, Part-1,

Delhi-42, Aadhar Card No.

381243515204

126

Vishal S/o

Sh. Azad

23.07.2016

C.F.W, Ward No. 66-S Vill.

Munirka, BM. NO.

40002502

H.No. J-10, J.J. Colony, Shakur

Pur, I BLOCK, Delhi-34, Aadhar

Card no. 745325460926

127

Johnson Kongari

S/o

Sh. Sushil Kongari

07.10.2013

C.F.W, Zonal Office, South

Zone, BM No. 15019983

H.No. S-55 A/125, Bilaspur,

Camp, Molarband, Badarpur,

South Delhi-44, Aadhar Card No.

456362595674

128

Prem Singh S/o

Sh. Chander Pal

06.09.2010

C.F.W, Green Park, Laddo

Sarai, BM. No. 10094545

H.No. 168, Vill. NanglaGurjan,

Pali (13), Faridabad, Haryana-

121004, Aadhar Card No.

537748135450

129

Manoj Kumar S/o

06.09.2010

C.F.W, Green Park, (office),

H.No. C-2/83, Gali No.2, Mukund

2174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sh. Ram Vilas

BM. No. 10094551

Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94,

Aadhar Card No. 407282629662

130

Gajender Yadav S/o

Sh. Surender Yadav

30.11.2016

Ward No. 8, BM No.

40000378

H.No. RZ-28, Narsing Garden, A-

Block, Khayala Vill., Vishnu

Garden, West Delhi-18, Aadhar

Card No. 419362513513

131

Surender Kumar S/o

Sh. Ram Ratan

24.09.2010

ward No. 12-F, West Zone,

Vikas Puri, KeshoPur, BM.

No. 15014413

H.No. 268, Harpal Pradhan

WaliGali, BhorGarh, North West

Delhi-40, Aadhar Card No.

298865798141

132

Vicky Gupta S/o Sh.

Ramesh Chander

Gupta

04.10.2013

Ward No. 79-S, Madangir,

BM. No. 15017577

H.No. RZ-197-F, Gali No. 15,

Tuglakabad Extn. kalka Ji, Delhi-

19, Aadhar Card no.

933958712534

133

Rajesh Kumar S/o

Sh. Preetam Singh

14.05.2013

Ward No. 012-S, Vikas Puri,

BM. No. 15014445

H.No,.E-228, J.J. Colony,

Wazirpur, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52,

Aadhar Card No. 952442609822

134

Dharmendra S/o Sh.

Attar Singh

14.05.2013

Ward No. 12-S, Vikas Puri,

BM. No. 15014446

H.No. E-229, 230, J.J. Colony,

Wazirpur, Ashok vihar, Delhi-52,

Aadhar Card No. 686271445916

135

Inder Singh S/o

Sh. Mukhtyar Singh

14.05.2013

Ward No. 15-S, Janakpuri,

BM. No. 15014447

H.No. E-151, J.J. Colony,

Wazripur, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52,

Aadhar Card No. 472787578875

136

Hari Prakash S/o

Sh. Bir Singh

04.09.2010

Ward No. 66-S, Munirka BM

No. 40002480

H.No. WZ-342, BasariDarapur,

Moti Nagar West Delhi-15, Aadhar

Card No. 573221182351

137

Vibhor Dayma S/o

Sh. MahipalDayma

07.10.2013

Ward No. 95-S, PulPahaldpur,

BM. No.

15020050

H.No. Vill. Sirozpur, Kalan (41),

Faridabad, Haryana-124004,

Aadhar Card No. 286563467430

138

Sanjay S/o

Sh. Horam

22.09.2010

Ward No. 59-S, Andrews Ganj

H.No 195/3, Ramesh Market,

GazhiGali No.1, East of Kailash,

Delhi-65, Aadhar Card No.

700555529523

139

Munna Shah S/o Sh.

Doodhnath Shah

18.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 58-S,

Andrews Ganj, BM. No.

40001604

H.No. S-61/121, Indira Gandhi

Camp, Nehru Nagar, Delhi-65,

Aadhar Card No. 330800278849

140

Subhash S/o

Sh. Hari Ram

26.08.2010

Ward No. 59-S, Andrews

Ganj, BM. No. 15020024

H.No. Vill. Ali Brahman, Teh-

Hathin, Distt- Palwal, Haryana-

121106, Aadhar Card No.

464264461369

141

Gaurav kumar Mavi

S/o Sh. Ashok

kumar

19.09.2015

Ward No. 58-S, Kasturba

Nagar, BM No.

40001597

H.No. -C-20/A, Gali No.4, Dayal

Pur, Karal Nagar, North East

Delhi-94, Aaddhar Card No.

771158175557

142

Suresh Sagar S/o

Sh. Madan Lal

28.11.2013

CFW,

Ward No. 58-S, Kasturba

Nagar, BM No.

15020011

H.No. 177, Vikas Nagar, Gali No.

2, Near Mehar Chand Gate, Vikas

Nagar, Loni, Gaziabad U.P.,

Aadhar Card No. 983686590574

143

Akshay Kumar S/o

Sh. Inder Pal Singh

08.10.2015

CFW,

Ward No. 58-S, Kasturba

Nagar, BM No. 40001662

H.No. K-123, MCD, Flate, Sunder

Nagari, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93,

Aadhar Card No. 717974480207

144

Sagar S/o

Sh. Satish

03.10.2012

CFW, Civic Centre (H.Q), BM

NO. 15004662

H.No.F-523, Bhola Nagar, Kotla

Mubarak Pur.

145

Arun Kumar S/o

Sh. Rakesh Kumar

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 60-S, Kotla

Mubarak Pur, Central Zone,

H.No. E-270, MCD Colony,

Azadpur, Delhi-33, Adhar Card No

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2175

BM No.

15020064

526859624267

146

Ankit S/o

Sh. Ishwar Singh

18.10.2016

CFW, Ward No. 14/S, New

Mahaveer Nagar, (SDMC),

West Zone , BM No.

40003696

H.No. 108, Gali No. 02, New Basti

Bankner, Narela, Delhi-40,

729752890609

147

Vikas S/o

Sh. Jai Bhagwan

03.10.2012

CFW, South Zone, Green

Park, S.J. Enclave, BM No.

15004632

H.No. V.P.O. Tajpur, Tihar

Baghru, Sonipat, Haryana-131022,

Adhar Card No. 419471545041

148

Surender S/o

Sh. Chiranji Lal

23.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 38-S,

Dwarka, Sec-II, Najaf Garh

Zone, BM No.

15004544

H.No. 452, Kabla and Jitayan,

Mohalla, Dhansa Village, South

West Delhi-73, Adhar Card No.

486328484406

149

Amit Kumar S/o

Sh. Virender Prasad

20.09.2015

CFW,

Ward No. 14-S, New Mahavir

Nagar, West (SDMC), West

Zone, BM No. 15023059

H.No. WZ-15-D, PossangiPur,

Janak Puri, New Delhi-58, Adhar

Card No. 692328501508

150

S. Uday Kumar S/o

Sh. T. Sekhar

20.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 18/S, Milap

Nagar, West Zone, SDMC,

BM No.

15023047

WZ-62B, Madaras Hair Cutting

Saloon, PossangiPur, Jhangir Puri,

Delhi-58, Adhar Card No.

466303165559

151

Ashif Khan S/o

Sh. Munna Khan

29.09.2010

CFW, Ward no. 13-S, Tilak

Nagar, BM No.

15014419

H.No. W-143/79, Indra Colony,

Tilak Nagar, Delhi-18, Adhar Card

No. 382934373939

152

Pawan S/o

Sh. Panna Lal

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 6-S, Tagore

Garden, West Zone

HNO. A-2/104, Street No. 2,

Shakti Garden, North East Delhi-

94, Adhar Card No. 241791904226

153

Amit S/o

Sh. Om Prakash

03.10.2012

Ward No. 61-S,Green Park,

South Zone, BM No.

15004633

H.No. V.P.O., Tajpur, Tihar

Khurd, (191), Sonipat, Haryana-

131022, Adhar Card No.

924633783681

154

Bal KishanTanwar

S/o

Sh. Nand Kishore

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 61-S, South

Zone, SDMC, BM No.

15017608

H.No. 65, Vill., Moti Bagh, Nanak

Pura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi-21,

Adhar Card No. 661251624270

155

Vikas Kumar S/o

Sh. Virender Mishra

08.10.2013

CFW, Green Park, S.J.

Enclave, South Zone, BM No.

15018213

H.No. WZ-148, Bihari Colony,

Todapur Village, New Delhi-12,

Adhar Card No. 554026047332

156

Ashish S/o

Lt. Sh. Suraj

Parkash

18.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 62-S, South

Zone, SDMC, BM No.

40011212

H.No. 319, Khasra No. 569,

Prajapati Mohalla, Maidan Garhi,

Delhi-68, Adhar Card No.

305368187708

157

Sachin Kumar S/o

Sh. Ramesh Kumar

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 69-S, Vasant

Kunj, South Zone, BM No.

15017611

H.No. D-51, Masood Pur, Harijan

Basti, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70,

Adhar Card No. 280645217481

158

Jitender Saini S/o

Sh. Bharam Parkash

Saini

08.11.2016

CFW,

Ward No. 08-S, Khyala, BM

NO.

40000381

H.No. 387/B, RumalWaliGali,

Near Gujar Chowk, Ram Pura,

Delhi-35, Adhar Card No.

660305826268

159

Hemant S/o

Sh. Roshan Lal

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 08-S, Khyala,

BM NO.

H.No. A-180, Raghubir Nagar, J.J.

Colony, Tagore Garden, Delhi-27,

2176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15018361

Adhar Card No. 665086182854

160

Satyadev Kanwat

S/o

Sh. Santosh Kumar

Meena

04.10.2013

CFW,

Ward No. 69-S, Vasant Kunj,

Green Park, South Zone, BM

No.

15017595

H.No. Vill. Rambas, P.O-

Hatoondi, Tehsil-Mundawar, Disst-

Alwar, Rajsthan-301427, Adhar

Card No. 531591015860

161

Amit S/o

Sh. Vinod Kumar

03.10.2012

CFW, Ward No. 61-SB, Green

Park, BM No.

15004658

H.NO. 19, CSP, D.D.A. Flats,

Safdarjung Enclave, Vasant Vihar,

Delih-29, Adhar card No.

692338654679

162

Ajay Singh Sagar

S/o

Sh. Subhash Chand

29.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 104-S,

Madan Pur Khadar, BM No.

40001669

H.No. 250, Jatav Mohalla,

Madanpur, Khadar, Delhi-76,

Adhar Card No. 761904379396

163

Vikrant S/o

Sh. Madan Lal

16.10.2015

CFW, Ward No. 95-S,

Badarpur, BM No.

40001664

H.No. 1390, J.J. Colony-III,

Mdanpur, Khadar, New Delhi.

164

Pushkaran S/o

Sh. Ram Dass

02.09.2010

CFW, ward No. 96-S,

Molarband, BM NO.

15020116

H.No. 122, Molarband, Vill-

Badarpur, South Delhi-44, Adhar

Card No. 371151132376

165

Tej veer S/o

Sh. Bijan

2015

CFW, Ward No. 96-S,

Molarband, BM No. 40001666

H.No. 179, Lallu Ka ChotaThok,

Kotban, Mathura,Chhata, U.P-

281403, Adhar Card No.

718896408699

166

Lekhram S/o

Sh. Budhram

27.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 97-S, Hari

Nagar, BM No. 1502055

H.No. 236, Ward No. 1, Koli

Mohalla, Near Shiv Mandir, vill-

Kalwaka, Dhatir (37), Palwal,

Haryana-121102, Adhar Card No.

459243851193S

167

Om Prakash S/o Sh.

Santram

25.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 91-S,

Govindpuri, BM No.

15020030

H.No. R-5, Bhaghel Mandir,

private Colony, Sri Niwas Puri,

South Delhi-65, Adhar Card No.

341138547523

168

kuldeep Singh S/o

Lt. Sh. Billu

25.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 100-S, Zakir

Nagar, BM No. 15020122

H.No. 32/A, Khizrabad, New

Friends Colony, South Delhi-25,

Adhar Card No. 382083849197

169

Akram Raja S/o

Varis

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 95-S,

Badarpur, BM No. 15020076

H.No. 154, Gali No. 3, Near

Masjid, Ekta Vihar Meethapur,

Badarpur, New Delhi-44, Adhar

Card No. 241587327779

170

Jasbir Singh S/o Lt.

Sh. Santosh Kumar

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 95-S,

Badarpur, BM No.

15020476

H.No. 1845, Ravi Dass Basti, Near

Karan Hotel, Kotla Mubarak Pur,

New Delhi-03, Adhar Card No.

371445817292

171

Satish S/o Sh. Tek

chand

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 81-S,

Khanpur, South Zone, BM No.

10093445

H.No. 18, Ward No. 7, Vill-

Lohina, Distt-Palwal, Haryana-

121106, Adhar Card No.

693738565192

172

Devender Kumar

S/o Sh. Tek chand

15.09.2014

CFW, SDMC, Green Park,

Ward No. 87-S, C.R. Park,

BM No. 15020477

H.No. 435, Jatav Mohalla,

Tughlakabad Village, Badarpur,

New Delhi-44, Adhar Card No.

665954826418

173

Harender Singh S/o

Sh. Ram Sewak

04.09.2010

CFW, SDMC, Green Park,

Ward No. 75-S, Tigri, BM.

No. 10093491

H.No. 414/4, Lakhpat Colony,

Part-II, Meethapur Extn.,

Dadarpur, New Delhi-44, Adhar

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2177

Card No. 469980466778

174

Arvind Joshi S/o Sh.

Ghanshyam Prasad

Joshi

04.10.2013

CFW, SDMC, Green Park,

Ward No. 75-S, Tigari, BM.

No. 15017573

H.No. MCD, Dispensary Staff,

Main Market, Mandapur, Khadar,

Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, Adhar

Card No. 415202785566

175

Amit Kumar S/o

Sh. Amar Singh

08.11.2013

CFW, Ward No. 156, Dariya

Ganj, BM No. 15011999

H.No. E-200, J.J. colony, Wazir

Pur, Delhi-52, Adhar Card No.

433062726195

176

Rajesh Kumar S/o

Sh. Kalu Ram

07.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 62-S, South

Zone, BM No. 10093456

H.No. 157, Ali Ganj, Kotala,

Mubarakpur, Delhi-03, Adhar Card

No. 442843695938

177

Sahil S/o Sh.

Khushal Chand

03.10.2012

CFW, Ward No. 61 (S-B),

South Zone, BM No.

15004659

H.No. 36, Hauz Khas Village,

Delhi-16, Adhar card No.

668973442356

178

Parveen Kumar S/o

Sh. Same Ram

06.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 80-S, Pushp

Vihar, BM No. 15017620

H.No. V.P.O. Pahrawar (69),

Rohtak, Haryana-124021, Adhar

Card No. 679651841210

179

Istkar Ahmad S/o

Nasim Ahmad

20.10.2016

CFW, Khyala Village,

Rajouri Garden, West Zone,

BM No. 40006139

H.No. D-1/444, Sultan Puri, New

Delhi-86, Adhar Card No.

329077524884

180

Ravi S/o

Sh. Rohtash

19.10.2015

CFW, Khyala Village, Rajouri

Garden, West Zone, BM No.

15023042

H.No. C-1472, Sultan Puri, C-

Block, New Delhi-86, Adhar Card

No. 598076732525

181

Vijay Kumar S/o

Sh. Amar Singh

14.05.2013

CFW, Ward No. 14/S,

Mahavir Nagar, BM No.

15014470

H.No. 286, Near RumalWaliGali,

Gujar Chock, Rampura, Delhi-35,

Adhar Card No. 596869813298

182

Gurdev S/o

Sh. Sukhdev

21.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 2-S, Punjabi

Bagh, West Zone, SDMC, BM

No. 15023080

H.No. 289, Holambi, Kalan

Village, HolambiKalan, Delhi-

82,Adhar Card No. 389067750947

183

kuldeep S/o

Sh. Kishan Lal

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 2-S, Punjabi

Bagh, West Zone, SDMC, BM

No. 15018051

H.No. A-642, Near Kali Mandir,

A- Block, Mangol Puri, Delhi-83,

Adhar Card No. 653815939166

184

Manjeet Prasad S/o

Sh. Janardan Prasad

21.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 2-S, Punjabi

Bagh, West Zone, SDMC, BM

No. 15023052

H.No. 32, Jailer Wala Bagh, I-

Block, Ashok Vihar, PH-2, Ashok

Vihar, Delhi-52, Adhar Card No.

792558845869

185

Sushil Kumar

Tiwari S/o Sh.

Krishan Kumar

Tiwari

20.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 2-S, Punjabi

Bagh, West Zone, SDMC, BM

No. 15023046

H.No. 42, Sunshine Apartment, A-

3 Block, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-63,

Adhar Card No. 784443467671

186

Jai Singh S/o

Manjeet Singh

27.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 2-S, Punjabi

Bagh, West Zone, SDMC, BM

No. 15004567

H.No. D-247, Camp No. 2,

Nangloi, Delhi-41, Adhar Card No.

853228255812

187

Jitender Singh S/o

Sh. Devender

14.05.2013

CFW, Ward No. 2-S, Punjabi

Bagh, West Zone, SDMC, BM

No. 15014420

H. No. Ismaila-11B (37), Rohtak,

Haryana-124501, Adhar Card No.

891245100786

188

Manoj Kumar S/o

Sh. Suresh Chand

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. (80-S), Pushp

Vihar, BM No. 10093466

H.No. G-96, Dakshinpuri, Dr.

Ambedkar Nagar, Pushpa Bhawan,

South Delhi-62, Adhar Card No.

322022074317

189

Dharmender Kumar

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. (80-S), Pushp

H.No. A-75, Jawahar Park,

2178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

S/o Sh. Diwari Lal

Vihar, BM No.

10094554

DevliRoad, Khanpur Village,

Delhi-62, Adhar Card no.

220432757650

190

Rajesh Kumar S/o

Lt. Sh. Jogi Ram

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. (80-S), Pushp

Vihar, BM No. 15004853

H.No. F II-297, Madangir, Dr.

Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-62,

Adhar Card No. 327443484840

191

Tara Chand S/o

Lt. Sh. Buddhi Ram

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. (80-S), Pushp

Vihar, BM No. 10093467

H.No. C-63, 64, J.J. Colony,

Khanpur, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,

Delhi-62, Adhar Card No.

877736726780

192

Pankaj S/o

Sh. Tilak Raj

03.10.2012

CFW, Ward No. 65-S, R.K.

Puram, South Zone, SDMC,

BM No. 15004619

H.No 401/1, BD, Munirka Village,

Delhi-67, Adhar Card No.

433659361759

193

Shyam Kumar S/o

Lt. Sh. Telu Ram

29.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 11-S, West

Zone, SDMC, BM No.

10094900

H.No. 263 B Block, W-54A,

Vishal Enclave, Tagore Garden,

Delhi-27, Adhar Card No.

922862006537

194

Kailash S/o

Sh. Daswant

23.08.2016

CFW, Ward No. 05-S, Rajouri

Garden, West Zone, BM No.

40000178

H. No. C-66, Village Ibrahim Pur,

Delhi-36, Adhar Card No.

856101761005

195

Saurabh S/o

Sh. Raj Kumar

CFW, Ward No. 05 (S),

Rajouri Garden (West-Zone),

BM No. 15023043

H.No. B-6/1, First Floor, Near

Gurdwara, Sec-3, Rohini, Delhi-

85, Adhar Card No. 235917977793

196

Rakesh S/o

Sh. Chander Bhan

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 1-S,

Madipur, BM No. 15017234

H.No. D-781, Mangolpuri,

Mangolpuri N- Block, Delhi-83,

Adhar Card No. 427601688514

197

KhajanChand S/o

Sh. Lal Singh

20.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 05 (S),

Rajouri Garden, BM No.

15023074

H.NO. 61, Raja Pur Gaon, Sec-9,

Rohini Delhi-85, Adhar Card No.

733079289342

198

Madhu D/o Sh.

Durga Dutt

20.10.2016

CFW, Ward No. 05 (S),

Rajouri Garden, West Zone,

BM No. 40000192

H.No. 3394, Gali No. 89, Block-B,

Choudhary Dairy, Jagat PurIlaka,

Delhi-84, Adhar Card No.

748609012203

199

Rajeev Kumar S/o

Sh. Ashok kumar

23.07.2016

Ward No. 05 (S), Rajouri

Garden (West-Zone), BM No.

40000193

H.No. E-180, J.J. Colony, Wazir

Pur, Delhi-52, 992905763278

200

Dharamvir S/o

Sh. Gyan Chand

27.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 94-S,

PulPehladpur

H.No. 566, Paach Bisa, Near

Mathura Dass Mandir, Ward No.

18, Khambi, Palwal, Haryana-

121106, Adhar Card No.

886645122174

201

Kunal Bhatnagar

S/o Sh. Yogender

Bhatnagar

15.09.2014

CFW, Ward No. 56 (S),

Siddharth Nagar, BM NO.

15020481

H.No. 86-A, 3rd Floor, Kewal Park

Extn., Azad Pur, Delhi-33, Adhar

Card No. 672579217768

202

Ajay Ahluwalia S/o

Sh. Rajan Ahluwalia

20.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 05-S, Rajouri

Garden, West Zone, BM No.

15023065

H.No. 43-B, LIG Flats, Rajouri

Garden, New Delhi-27, Adhar

Card No. 579633253530

203

Arvind Kumar

Chaurasia S/o

Sh. Ram Surat

Chaurasia

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 67-S, Lado

Sarai, BM No. 10093441

H.No. G-349, Dakshin puri, Dr.

Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi-62, Adhar

Card No. 240292610363

204

Lokman Sharma S/o

Sh. Maan Singh

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 67-S, Lado

Sarai, BM No. 10093474

H.No. B-206/A, Flat No. A2, Gate

No.1, Duggal Colony, Devli Road,

Khan pur, Delhi-62, Adhar Card

No. 937782194175

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2179

205

Mhd. Ashraf S/o

Gulam Mohammad

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 67-S, Lado

Sarai, Health Store.

H.No. 276, Hauzrani, Malviya

Nagar, New Delhi-17, Adhar Card

No. 216331549705

206

Ajay Kumar S/o

Sh. Bije Singh

23.07.2016

CFW, Ward No. 67-S, Lado

Sarai, BM No. 40002426

H.No. 896, Dhanaura, Silver

Nagar, Distt- Baghpat, Utter

pradesh-250611, Adhar Card No.

998630344164

207

Shahrukh Khan S/o

Mainuddin

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 67-S, Lado

Sarai, BM No. 15017617

H.N. 242, Hauzrani, Malviya

Nagar, New Delhi-17, Adhar Card

No. 916640861706

208

Shankar S/o

Sh. R. Mugam

18.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 67-S, Lado

Sarai, BM no. 40002526

H.No. G-II, 192 Madangir, Dr.

Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-62,

Adhar Card No. 541111461893

209

Raj Kumar S/o

Sh. Lakshmi

Narayan

21.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 84-S,

Sangam Vihar

H.No. G-9/35, Sangam Vihar,

Pushpa Bhawan, South Delhi-62,

Adhar Card No. 649055733779

210

Raju Kumar S/o

Sh. Kanhaiya Lal

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 84-S,

Sangam Vihar.

H.No. 170, Main Pusta Road, Near

Old Shiv Mandir, Aali Village,

South Dehli-76, Adhar Card No.

539476289736

211

Surender Kumar S/o

Sh. Ramswroop

23.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 7-S, Vishnu

Garden, BM No. 15004568

H.No. D-3, Market Line, Phase-2,

Nangloi, Delhi-41, Adhar Card No.

323441259105

212

Sandeep S/o

Sh. Mahender Singh

20.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 24 (S),

Baprola, BM No. 15023075

H.No. Vill. Bahu Akberpur (94),

Rohtak, Haryana-124001, Adhar

Card No. 785123934836

213

Vinay Kumar S/o

Sh. NafeSngh

29.09.2014

CFW, Ward No. 7 (S), Vishnu

Garden, BM No. 15020225

H.No. CN/105, Vill. Raza Pur,

Gaon, Sec-9, Rohini, Delhi-85,

Adhar Card No. 235967563043

214

Raj Kumar S/o

Lt. Sh. Ravinder Pal

Singh

26.10.2016

CFW, Ward No. 20 (S), Vikas

Puri, West Zone, BM No.

40000130

H.No. JN/2, BG-7, Paschim Vihar,

New Delhi-63, 807130300435

215

Manoj Kumar S/o

Sh. Devi Lal

25.10.2016

CFW, Ward No. 22 (S), Sainik

Enclave, BM No. 40006188

H.No. D-6, Market Line, J.J.

Colony, Camp No. 2, Nangloi,

Delhi-41, Adhar Card No.

828758663902

216

kuldeep S/o

Sh. Raj Kumar

29.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 12 (S), vikas

puri, West Zone, BM No.

15014442

H.No. V.P.O. Sersa, Teh Rai

Sonipat, Haryana-131028, Adha

Card No. 437461765041

217

Mahender S/o

Lt. Sh. Kailash

Chand

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 7 (S), Vishnu

Garden, BM No.

15017257

H.No. 625, N- Block, Mangol Puri,

Delhi-83, Adhar Card No.

288098336745

218

Sanjeet Kumar S/o

Sh. Om Parkash

28.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 012 (S),

Keshopur, West Zone, BM

No. 15014443

H.No. 269, VPO, Ridhau, Teh-

Kharkhoda, Sonipat, Haryana-

131408, Adhar Card No.

668259821500

219

Uttam Kumar S/o

Sh. J.S. Tanwar

31.08.2010

CFW, Ward No. 84 (S),

Sangam Vihar , BM No.

15020096

H.No. J-3/212, DDA Flats, Kalka

Ji, New Delhi-19, Adhar Card No.

439762727428

220

SachinTanwar S/o

Sh. Virender

Tanwar

23.08.2016

CFW, West Zone, Rajouri

Garden, SDMC, BM No.

40000131

H.No. WZ-1607, Nangal Raya,

New Delhi-46, Adhar Card No.

430275355821

2180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

221

Ramveer S/o

Sh. Roop Chand

2010

CFW, Ward No. 72-S, Bhati,

SDMC, BM No.

10093444

H.No. 339, Shokda Mohalla, Bada

Chowk, Fateh Pur Beri, New

Delhi-74, Adhar Card No.

899805336642

222

Laxman S/o

Lt. Sh. Mool Chand

06.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 61 (S), South

Zone, SDMC, BM No.

10094570

H.No. A-1st/134, Madangir, Dr.

Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi-62, Adhar

Card No. 873921408638

223

Rahul Sharma S/o

Sh. Suresh Chander

Sharma

18.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 65-S, R.K.

Puram, South Zone, SDMC,

BM No. 40002507

H.No. 9276, B-9, LIG Flat, Vasant

Kunj, New Dehi-70, AdharCard

No. 812870959792

224

Rajesh Kumar S/o

Lt. Sh. Ramswaroop

Sharma

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 85 (S),

Sangam Vihar, BM No.

15020034

H.No. 80, New Ganga Vihar,

Khora Colony, Gaziabad, U.P.,

Adhar Card No. 99610502221

225

Shiv kumar S/o

Sh. Rakesh Kumar

23.04.2013

CFW, Ward No. 57 (S), Lajpat

Nagar, BM No.

15019980

H.No. E-65, J.J. Colony, Wazir

Pur, Delhi-52, Adhar Card No.

276098113870

226

Harish Kumar

Chopra S/o

Sh. Sushil Kumar

Chopra

08.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 09 (S),

Subhash Nagar, BM No.

15017258

H.No. B-26, Tagore Garden Extn.,

Near Rajouri Garden Police Station

New Delhi27, Adhar Card No.

827179278277

227

Vishal S/o

Sh. Chote Lal

26.07.2016

CFW, Ward No. 79 (S),

Madangir, BM No.

40002560

H.No. C-II, 276, Madangir, Dr.

Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi-62, Adhar

Card No. 503965666665

228

Deepak S/o

Sh. Chote Lal

06.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 75 (S), Tigri.

BM No. 10103489

H.No. C-II, 276, Madangir, Dr.

Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi-62, Adhar

Card No. 938512084281

229

Manoj Kumar S/o

Sh. Kheru Lal

18.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 79 (S),

Madangir, BM No.

40002561

H.No. D-548, Tigari, J.J. Colony,

Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sec-1, New

Dehli-62. Adhar Card No.

690481805509.

230

Shubham Kumar

Parashar

20.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 5-S, Rajouri

Garden, West Zone, BM No.

15023079

H.No. C-197/ 198, Raghubir

Nagar, New Delhi-10027. Adhar

Card No. 548451332271.

231

Kishor Kumar S/o

Sh. Mukesh

20.09.2015

CFW, Mohan Garden, Uttam

Nagrar, BM No.

15023040

H.No. D-709, D-Block, J.J.

Colony, Mangol Puri, Delhi-83.

Adhar Card No. 800798739333.

232

Bipin Bisht S/o

Sh. Bhupendersingh

Bisht

18.09.2015

CFW, Green Park, SDMC.

BM No. 40002563

H.No. 3105, Block-C, 4th Floor,

Back Right Side, Green Field

Colony, Faridabad, Hayana-

121010. Adhar Card No.

853169552255

233

Rahul S/o

Sh. Pooran

22.09.2015

CFW, PulPrahladPur, SDMC.

BM No. 40001629

H.No. E-24, Lal Kuan,

Punchmukhi Mandir, M.B. Road,

Jaitpur, Badarpur, South Delhi-44.

Adhar Card No. 336031367888

234

Prashant Kumar

Yadav S/o Sh.

Karmvir Yadav

08.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 48-S,

Bijwasan, Najaf Garh Zone.

BM No. 15018310

H.No. 125, V.P.O. Dundhera,

Distt- Gurugram, Haryana-122016.

Adhar Card No. 476883526925

235

Nand Kishore S/o

Lt. Sh. Mangal

06.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 70-S,

Chaterpur, South Zone. BM

No. 10094544

H.No. T-49, Near Hunuman

Mandir, Village Hauz Khas, New

Delhi-16. Adhar Card No.

814708986465

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2181

236

Neeraj Bidla S/o

Sh. Somnath Bidla

20.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 26-S, Mohan

Garden. BM No. 15023354

H.No. TH-24, Double Storey,

Harijan Colony, Tilak Nagar, New

Delhi-18. Adhar Card NO.

306368066028

237

Jitender S/o

Sh. Jai Parkash

18.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 66-S,

Munirka, South Zone. BM No.

40002490

H.No. C-16, Hardev Nagar,

Jharoda, MazraBurari, Delhi-84.

Adhar Card No. 605762964887.

238

Keshav Kumar S/o

Sh. Sumer Singh

18.09.2015

CFW, Ward No. 75 (S), Tigri,

Green Park, SDMC. BM No.

40002535

H.No. Fatehpur Billoch,

Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana-

121004. Adhar Card No.

836828773819.

239

Vijay Singh S/o

Sh. Nekram Singh

07.10.2013

C.F.W. (Malaria Beldar),

Ward No. 17 (S), Sita Puri.

H.No. RZ-B3/244, Vijay Enclave,

Dabri, New Dehli-45. Adhar Card

No. 360827059226.

240

Ashutosh Kumar

Jha S/o Sh.

Vijender kumar Jha

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 57-S, Lajpat

Nagar. BM No. 15020019

H.No. B-219, D.D.A. Flats, Kalka

Ji, New Dehi-19. Adhar Card No.

993238028329.

241

Charanjeet S/o

Sh. Ram Singh

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 10/S Hari

Nagar. BM No. 15017238

H.No. WZ-103, Rishi Nagar, Rani

Bagh, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-34.

Adhar Card No. 540091421131

242

Jitender Kumar S/o

Sh. Raj Singh

22.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 94 (S)

PulPahaladPur. BM No.

15020045

H.NO. 668, Mehla Mohalla,

Madan Pur, Khadar, ( Near Sarita

Vihar), New Delhi-76. Adhar Card

No. 509437122115

243

Gaurav Malha S/o

Sh. Joginder Singh

07.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 14-S, Inder

Puri. BM No. 15018052

H.No. 647, Mangol Puri, Dehli-83.

331/17, Railway Colony, Ranigh

Bagh, Shakur Basti, Delhi-34.

Adhar Card No. 310659823554

244

Pradeep Kumar S/o

Sh. Vinod Kumar

21.09.2010

CFW, Raghubir Nagar,

Rajouri Garden, West Zone.

BM No. 15014449

H.No. E-32/5, Near Yadav Gali,

Ankur Enclave, Karawal Nagar,

North East Delhi-94. Adhar Card

No. 880910463718

245

Vipin S/o Sh. Babu

Lal

14.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 86-S, G.K-I.

BM No. 15020112

H.No. G-II, 173, Madangir, New

Delhi-62. Adhar Card No.

419926505615

246

Chandan Kumar Jha

S/o Sh. Bhagwan

Jha

08.10.2015

CFW, Ward No. 86-S, G.K- I.

BM No. 40011215

H.No. K- Block, 18D/301, Sangam

Vihar, Delhi-62. Adhar Card No.

680302892133.

247

Raj Kumar S/o

Sh. Sant Ram

04.09.2010

CFW, Ward No. 86-S, G.K-I

BM No. 10094522.

H.No. Vill. Kashipr, Palwal,

Haryana.

248

Mange Ram S/o

Sh. Raghuveer

Singh

04.10.2013

CFW, Ward No. 72-S, Bhati.

BM No. 15017613

H.No. 09, Bhopa Mohalla,

Fatehpur, South Delhi-74. Adhar

Card No. 654072473159

249

Naresh S/o

Sh. Ramu

06.11.2011

CFW, Ward No. 72-S, Bhati.

BM No. 40002531

H.No. 275, Kahiya Mohalla,

Fatehpur Beri, Bada Chowk, New

Delhi-74. Adhar Card No.

682151144825

250

Shaharuk S/o

Bahab Ali

08.09.2016

CFW, SDMC Office, West

Zone. BM No. 40000751

H. No. 33, Sec-141, Sahdra, Noida,

Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar

Pradesh-201304. Adhar Card No.

858952638271

251

Lakhan Singh S/o

Sh. Mukesh Kumar

Singh

19.09.2015

CFW, SDMC (H.Q), Civic

Centre. BM No. 40000711

H. No. 17, Saket Block,

Mandawali, Fajalpur, Delhi-92.

Adhar Card No.351249902575

2182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

252

Aman Kumar S/o

Sh. Rajendra Kumar

19.09.2015

SDMC (H.Q), Civic Centre.

BM No. 10000712

H.No. 79/100 Quarter, Ambedkar

Bus Terminal, Darya Ganj, Central

Delhi, Delhi-02. Adhar Card no.

802534388932.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1080.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मुख्य अवभयंता (विद्युत), एनडीएमसी मुख्यालय, वसविक सेंटर, नई ददल्ली; ज्ञान इंटरप्राइजेज, करोल बाग, नई

ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री संजय, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक

अविकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 248/2019) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है,

को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025-07-2023-127-आई आर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2023

S.O. 1080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 248/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Chief Engineer (Elect.),NDMC Headquarter, Civic Centre, New Delhi; Gyan Enterprises, Karol Bagh, New

Delhi, and Shri Sanjay, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

02.06.2023.

[No. L-42025-07-2023-127 -IR(DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 248/2019

Date of Passing Award- 22^nd May,2023

Between:

Sh. Sanjay, S/o Sh. Roop Chand,

R/o House No. A-9, Gali No. 01,

Bank Colony Road, Mandoli Extn.

Delhi-110093

…Workman

Versus

1. The Chief Engineer (Elect.)

NDMC Headquarter, Civic Centre,

New Delhi-110002.

2. Gyan Enterprises,

Office-68, Model Basti, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005.

….Managements.

Appearances:-

Sh. Santosh Singh. Ld. A/R for the claimant

None for the management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2183

AWARD

This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the managements praying a

direction to the managements to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages and all other consequential

benefits.

As per the application filed, the claimant workman was in continuous employment of the management w. e.

f. 27.01.2018 and till 11.12.2018, when his service was illegally terminated by the management. During this period, he

was discharging the duty as an electrician and his last drawn salary was 15,000/- per month. He was engaged through

the agency/S Gyan Enterprises, the management No 2 herein and deputed to work at Hindu Rao Hospital, under the

direct supervision and control for management No 1. During this period he was working continuously under Mgt No 1

and worked for 240 days in the calendar year preceding the illegal termination. During the course of his employment,

he was discharging his duty with utmost sincerity and had never gave the employer any scope of complaint. But the

employer was not providing him the legal facilities like minimum wage, bonus, facilities under the EPF&ESI Act. He

was not provided with appointment letter and wage slip. On account of this, the workman was often raising complain.

Being annoyed by the same, on 11.12.2018, the management terminated his service illegally. At the time of

termination, he was neither served with a notice of termination nor the termination compensation was paid to him in

compliance to the provisions of ID Act. The action of the management in terminating his service is illegal and

contrary to the provisions of ID Act. Hence, the claimant has prayed for a relifin the nature of a direction to the

managements to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity of service.

Notice of the proceeding was served on both the managements. But the managements opted not to contest

and did not appear. Hence by order dt 11^th May 2022.

The claimant filed his affidavit as evidence supported by few documents. The documents are one

appreciation letter issued by Management No 1 and the demand notice served on the managements before filing the

claim.

In the affidavit filed the claimant has stated that for redressal of the grievance for termination of service, he

had made a representation to the management. Since he received no response, on 14.01.2019, served demand notice

and after a reasonable time, raised a dispute before the labour commissioner. Though a conciliation proceeding was

initiated, for the adamant attitude of the management no fruitful result could be achieved. On receipt of failure report

from the conciliation officer, he filed the claim. He has further stated that the respondent No 2, which is a manpower

supply company had engaged him as an electrician. Later he was deployed to work under the management no 1 at

Hindu Rao Hospital. There he was working under the supervision and control of Mgt No 1. The Mgt no 2 had issued

an appreciation letter to him. The said letter has been marked as WW1/1. In addition to this the claimant has filed the

copy of the demand notice and failure report as WW1/2 &WW1/3. Except these documents, no other evidence has

been adduced to prove the relationship of the claimant as the employee of Mgt No 1. But the document filed as

WW1/1 proves the employer and employee relationship between the Mgt No 2 and the claimant. The evidence of the

claimant to say that his service was terminated illegally without complying the provisions of ID Act has remained

unchallenged and un controverted for the absence of the Respondents in this proceeding. Hence it is concluded that

the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by Management No 2 without complying the provisions of sec 25

F of the ID Act and the said action of Mgt No2 has forced the claimant to this litigation and for the said illegal action

of the Mgt No 2, the claimant is entitled to compensation and not reinstatement as the tenure of employment was too

small and about one year only. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The claim is allowed ex parte against Mgt No 2 and dismissed against Mgt No 1. The management no 2

isdirected to pay the earned wage of the claimant @15000/- per month for the period of 01/11/2018 to 11.12.2018 and

an amount of Rs 25000/- as litigation expenses and further amount of Rs 7,500/- as termination compensation. This

amount shall be paid to the claimant within one month from the date of publication of award without interest failing

which the amount shall be payable with interest @6% per annum from the date of accrual and till the final payment is

made.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1081.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार भारत पयाटन विकास वनगम (आईटीडीसी), 7 लोिी रोड, नई ददल्ली,, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और

अध्यक्ष, ऑल इंवडया आईटीडीसी ट्रेड यूवनयन फेडरेशन, (एचएमएस एंड इंवडपेंडेंट फेडरेशन), नई ददल्ली; श्री एस.के

खुराना ,द्वारा - ऑल इंवडया आईटीडीसी िकासा फेडरेशन (इंटक) एदफवलएटेड यूवनयन्द्स फेडरेशन), नई ददल्ली, के बीच

2184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (संदभा संख्या

146/2021) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ

02.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/74/2021 -आई आर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2023

S.O. 1081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 146/2021) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

India Tourism Development Corporation(ITDC),7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi, and The President, All India ITDC Trade

Union Federation, (HMS & Independent Federation), New Delhi ; Shri S.K Khurana, Through- All India ITDC

Worker’s Federation(INTUC) Affiliated Unions Federation), New Delhi, which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 02.06.2023.

[No. L-42011/74/2021 -IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 146/2021

Date of Passing Award- 22^nd May, 2023

Between:

1. All India ITDC Trade Union Federation

(HMS & Independent Federation),

Through- Sh. S.S. Upadhyaya, The President,

C-47, Ashok Hotel Staff Quarters,

50-B, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-110021.

2. All India ITDC Worker’s Federation(INTUC

Affiliated Unions Federation),

Through- Sh. S.K Khurana, C-201,

Ashok Hotel Quarters,

50-B, Chankyapuri, New Delhi-110021.

….Workmen

Versus

India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC),

Scope Building, Core-08,6^th floor,

7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

….Management

Appearances:-

Shri S.S Upadhaya , Ld. A/R for the claimant.

None for the Management ITDC

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. India Tourism Development Corporation(ITDC) and its workman/claimant herein, under

clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter

No. L-42011/74/2021 IR(DU)) dated 06.08.2021 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the action of the management of ITDC is non payment of HRA to non-Executive

employees on revised wages w.e.f 22.05.2018 i.e. the date from which Executive of the

Corporation are being paid revised HRA, and recovery of food allowance of Rs.250/-w.e.f.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2185

01.01.2017 from non Executive employees, amounts to violation of partite settlement dated

20.03.2019, as raised by All India Union Federation (HMS and Independent Federation)

and All India ITDC Worker’s Federation (INTUC Affiliated Unions Federation) vide letter

dated 24.07.2020? If yes, what relief from non-executive cadre of ITDC are entitled to and

what directions, if any, are necessary in this regard?”

As per the claim statement the claimants are two unions functioning for the rights and wellbeing of the

employees working for ITDC and both the unions have been recognized by the Management of ITDC. The ITDC on

intervals signs the bipartite wage settlement to ensure payment of due wage and other benefits to the employees. This

has been in practice since the date ITDC came in to existence. The last settlement was for the period 01.01.2007 to

31.12 2016. The next settlement was due from 01.01.2017. Hence the Management started negotiating on the said

issue with the Federation, which started in August 2018 and concluded on 20.03.2019 and a memorandum to that

effect was signed on 20.03 2019 between the Federation and the committee constituted for the purpose by the C M D

of ITDC. As per clause 8 of the said memorandum of settlement, HRA is payable to all the non executive employees

of ITDC on the revised pay as per the settlement w. r. f. 22.05.2018, the date on which the executive employees were

paid HRA on the revised pay. But the management in stead of paying HRA to the non executive employees from that

date on the revised pay, paid it w. e. f. 06.06.2019 in contravention of the terms of the Bipartite settlement. Not only

that, the management of ITDC, also withdrew the meal allowance paid to the non executive employees @Rs 250/-

per month and also recovered the amount already paid from the arrears, where as the executive employees working in

HCE unit are enjoying the free meal facility. Being aggrieved by such discrimination, the claimant unions raised the

demand. But no solution could be arrived. Hence, the claimant unions raised a dispute before the Labour

Commissioner and steps were taken for a conciliation. But for the adamant attitude of the management, conciliation

failed and the appropriate Govt. referred the matter for adjudication of the dispute in terms of the reference. A prayer

has been made to direct the management of ITDC to pay HRA to the non executive employees on the revised pay w.

e. f. 22.05.2018 the date from which it has been paid to the executive employees and to continue payment of food

allowance @Rs 250/- per month from 01.01.2017, and refund of the food allowance recovered from the arrear with

interest.

Notice of the claim petition was served on the management of ITDC. But the said management though had

appeared on receipt of the notice, opted not to contest the proceeding and did not file written statement. Hence by

order dt 27.09.2022, it was proceeded ex parte.

The claimant unions filed the documents in support of their stand and expressed that no oral evidence need to

be adduced since their claim is based upon the bi partite settlement and other documents.

The claimant unions have filed the copy of the resolution passed in the meeting of the two claimant unions to

raise the demand with the management as has been stated in the claim petition. In addition to this the claimants have

filed the copy of the demand notice sent in respect of the demands to the CMD, ITDC and the memorandum of

settlement signed between the claimant unions and the management of ITDC on 20.03.2019. as per clause 8 of the

said memorandum, the rates of HRA has been revised variably in respect of different category of cities. It was also

agreed that therevised HRA along with the revised pay shall be paid to the executive employees w. e. f. 24.05.2018

and the demand for payment of revised HRA to the non executive employees from that date shall be referred to the

Board of Directors for their approval and till then the HRA shall be paid in the pre revised rate. Surprisingly, more

than four years have elapsed in the mean time. The management has not come up with information as to what

happened to the recommendation. There is no evidence before this tribunal to believe if any reference in this regard

has been made or not. The delaying action of the management in this regard amounts to denial of the benefit to a

section of the employees without any convincing reason amounts to unfair labour practice defined under law.

In clause 12 of the memorandum of settlement it has been mentioned that the Meal Allowance shall stand

dispensed with in respect of all the employees. It is the stand that the executive employees are still enjoying the

benefit whereas the facility has been denied to the non executive employees and the food allowance paid has been

recovered. But this stand as taken in the claim petition has not been substantiated by the claimant either through oral

or documentary evidence. Hence the Tribunal has no evidence to hold that the management has exhibited a

discriminatory attitude towards the non executive employees by discontinuing the food allowance and by making

recovery of the amount already paid. Hence relief in this regard can not be granted to the claimants. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The reference be and the same is partly allowed in favour of the claimants and partly rejected. It is held that

the decision of the management in not paying House Rent to the Non Executive employees on revised wage w. e. f.

22.05.2018, as has been paid to the executive employees is illegal and contrary to the terms of settlement dt

20.03.2019. the management is directed to extend the said benefit to the non executive employees from the date it has

been paid to the executive employees and continue payment of the same along with each month salary. management

shall give effect to this direction within one month from the date of publication of the award and pay the arrear house

rent of the employees within two months from the publication of the award without interest failing which the amount

accrued in favour of individual employee shall carry interest @6% from the date of accrual and till the final payment

is made.

2186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID

act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1082.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मुख्य अवभयंता आयुि आयकर-8,आयकर विभाग, वसविक सेंटर, नई ददल्ली; अलंदकत वलवमटेड, सीसीआइाटी-8,

वसविक सेंटर, नई ददल्ली, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री सुनील कुमार, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 190/2019) को जैसा दक

हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42025/07/2023-126 -आई आर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2023

S.O. 1082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.190/2019) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

The Chief Engineer Commissioner of Income Tax-8,Income Tax Department, Civic Centre, New Delhi ; Alankit Ltd.,

CCIT-8, Civic Centre, New Delhi, and Shri Sunil Kumar, Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 02.06.2023.

[No. L-42025/07/2023-126 -IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-I, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 190/2019

Date of Passing Award- 25^th May, 2023

Between:

Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Pratap Singh,

R/o-170, Baujha Shibbanpura, Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh-201001.

….Workman

Versus

1. The Chief Engineer Commissioner of Income Tax-8,

Income Tax Department,

Room No.403,27^th Floor, E-2 Block

Civic Centre, New Delhi-110001.

2. Alankit Ltd.

CCIT-8, Room No. 403, B-Block,

Civic Centre, New Delhi-110002.

…. Managements.

Appearances:-

Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld. A/R for the claimant

None for the management

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2187

AWARD

This is an application filed u/s 2- A of the ID Act by the workman against the managements praying a direction to

the managements to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages and all other consequential benefits.

As per the claim statement, the claimant was employed as a peon in the establishment of the respondent No 1 i.e.

Income Tax Dept through the management No 2, since 01.04.2015 and his last drawn wage was Rs14,200/-per month.

Though he was discharging his duty with all sincerity, without giving any scope of complaint, the managements were

not granting him his legitimate and legal dues. At the time of employment no letter of appointment was issued. In

spite of repeated demand the managements were not paying him the minimum wage, bonus, over time allowance,

leave etc. he was not even supplied the duty attendance card and pay slip. The repeated verbal request made by the

claimant in this regard remained unheeded. On the contrary, being aggrieved by his legal demands, the managements

on 19.03.2018, illegally terminated his service. At the time of termination, the provisions of ID Act were not followed

as no notice of termination, notice pay or termination compensation was paid, though the claimant had worked

continuously in the establishment of the Respondent No 1 for more than 240 days in the calendar year preceding to the

date of his termination. Being aggrieved, he approached the union and through the union, raised an industrial dispute

before the labour commissioner cum conciliation officer (central) New Delhi. Before that, on 24.10.2018, he had also

served a demand notice on the management requesting re- instatement in to service and release of his un paid wages

for the period 01.03.2018 to 19.03.2018. But the management did not give reply to the same. The attempt for

conciliation failed for the non co operation of the managements. It has also been stated that he was working for the

respondent No 1 under it’s supervision and control. But to defeat his legal rights, the respondent No 1 had shown him

as if employed through the contractor. In fact the Respondent No 1 has changed many contractors during the period of

employment of the claimant. But his status was never changed or discontinued. Hence in this petition filed u/s 2A of

the ID Act, the claimant has prayed for an award directing the managements to re instate him in to service with back

wages, unpaid duty pay and all other consequential benefits.

When noticed, the Management No 1 i.e. the Dept of Income Tax appeared and filed written statement denying

all the stand taken by the claimant. It has been pleaded that the Respondent No 1 had awarded a valid contract to the

Respondent No2 of this proceeding for supply of Data Entry Operators and Peons (MTS) for the period 01.01.2018 to

31.12.2018. vide work order dt 28.12.2016.according to the terms of the contract the persons to be engaged by the

contractor will be the employees of the contractor and they will have no claim whatso ever against the Income Tax

Department. This claimant was engaged by the service provider/contractor for work at the office of the Respondent

No 1. But on many occasions, it was noticed by the Respondent No1 that the claimant was not performing his duties

up to the expectation of the Respondent No 1. On the contrary, he was misbehaving the female employees of the

Respondent No 1. Not only that, he was also found involved in a mischievous act, whenthe office car of one Income

Tax Officer was found severely damaged. Thus the service provider was informed about the unsatisfactory

performance of the claimant. There after the claimant was found absconding from his duty w.e.f. 19.03.2018. his

service was never terminated by Respondent No1 nor his duty pay was withheld. Hence the Respondent No 1 has

prayed for dismissal of the claim raised against the Income Tax Department.

The Respondent No 2, on service of the notice, appeared and filed WS stating that the claimant though deployed

for work by him, the Respondent No 1 is his employer as he was working under the direct supervision and control of

the said management who is the principal employer in this case. Moreover, the claimant at his own wish had

abandoned his duties without giving any prior intimation and never came back to resume his duties. Thus his service

was never terminated by Respondent No 2. It has also been stated that the Respondent No 1 was making payment for

the persons employed in it’s office and in turn, the Respondent No 2 was making payment to the persons so employed

including all statutory benefits. Hence the claim of illegal termination as advanced by the claimant is base less and

liable to be rejected.

On these rival pleadings the following issues were framed for adjudication.

ISSUES

1-Whether the proceeding is maintainable?

2-Whether there exists employer and employee relationship between the Management No.1 and the claimant.

3- Whether the claimant was under the employment of Management No 2.

4-Whether the service of the claimant was illegally terminated by the managements.

5- To what relief the claimant is entitled to.

The claimant testified as WW1 and produced several documents marked in the series of WW1/1 to WW1/11.

These documents include the duty assignment order issued by Management No 1 in respect of the claimants and other

persons employed by Management No2, the attendance sheet for different months maintained by different contractors

engaged by the Mgt No 1, the wage payment sheets for different months, the documents relating to statutory

contribution made by the employer for the claimant etc. the claimant has also filed the photo copies of the ID Cards

2188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

issued from time to time by the employer. In his oral testimony the claimant has stated that he was working

continuously in the establishment of the Mgt No 1 under it’s supervision and control and the introduction of the

contractors was only intended to defeat his legal rights. Though the contractors were changed on intervals, he

continued to work without break until his service was terminated illegally.

This evidence of the claimant has been left unchallenged for the reason that none of the managements opted to

cross examine him. But the documents filed by the claimant clearly show that he was employed by the contractors

who were giving him salary and making deposit of his contribution with the EPF&ESI organizations. The salary slip

and the ID cards were also issued to him by the contractor i.e. Mgt No 2. The documents no where reflect the name of

Mgt No 1 as the employer. There is absolutely no evidence to believe that the claimant was working under the

supervision and control of the Mgt No 1.

It is the stand taken by the managements that the claimant’s service was never terminated but he had voluntarily

abandoned the employment and thus the necessacity of termination notice, notice pay or compensation ever arose.

This aspect has not been proved by the management. On the contrary the claimant has adduced oral evidence to prove

that his service was terminated without complying the provisions of ID Act and the same stands un rebutted and

unchallenged. But for the stand taken in the WS with regard to the unsatisfactory performance of the claimant it is

evidently clear that the relationship of the claimant with his employers is not harmonious and the circumstances do not

justify reinstatement. Justice would be served by directing the management to compensate the claimant for the illegal

termination. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The claim is allowed on contest against Mgt No 2 and dismissed against Mgt No 1. The management no 2 is

directed to pay the earned wage of the claimant @14200/- per month for the period of 01.03.2018 to 19.03.2018 and

an amount of Rs50,000/- as litigation expenses and a further amount of Rs20,000 /- as termination compensation. This

amount shall be paid to the claimant within one month from the date of publication of award without interest failing

which the amount shall be payable with interest @6% from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made.

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID

act 1947.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHNATY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1083.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार मैससा- प्रवशक्षण महावनदेशालय, कौशल विकास मंत्रालय और उद्यमशीलता, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और

श्री संजय कुमार, श्री विक्की, कामगार ,द्वारा -जनिादी जनरल कामगार मजदूर यूवनयन , के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय

सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण- सह- श्रम न्द्यायालय-2 नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 06/2022) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक

में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42011/156/2021-आई आर (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 19th June, 2023

S.O. 1083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 06/2022) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

M/s. Directorate General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, and Shri Sanjay Kumar ,

Shri Vicky, Worker, through Janwadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union, which was received along with soft copy of

the award by the Central Government on 02.06.2023.

[No. L-42011/156/2021 -IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. Pranita Mohanty, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 06/2022

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2189

Date of Passing Award- 22^nd May, 2023

Between:

1. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Chander Mohan, and

2. Sh. Vicky S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar

As rep. by Janwadi General Kamgar

Mazdoor Union.

….Workmen

Versus

M/s. Directorate General of Training

Ministry of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship.

….Management

Appearances:-

Shri B.K Prasad , Ld. A/R for the claimant.

None for the Management

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. M/s. Directorate General of Training Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship and

its workman/claimant herein, under clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial

Dispute Act 1947 vide letter No. L-42011/156/2021 IR(DU)) dated 07.12.2021 to this tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect.

“Whether the management of Directorate General of Training (DGT) under Ministry of Skill

Development and Entrepreneurship falls within the definition of índustry’under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

If yes, whether the claim of Janwadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union, New Delhi vide letter

dated 27.06.2019 in respect of disputant Sh. Sanjay kumar S/o Sh. Chander Mohan and Sh.

Vicky S/o Sh. Vinod Kumar to the management of Directorate General of Training (DGT)

under Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship that Sh. Sanjay kumar and Sh.

Vicky are entitled to ‘equal pay for equal work’ with the consequential benefits except

increments w.e.f. 08.02.2013 and 05.05.2014 respectively and regularization is proper, legal

and justified? If yes, to what relief the disputants are entitled to what directions, if any, are

necessary in this regard?”

As per the claim statement that the workmen connected with this dispute namely, Sanjay Kumar S/o of

Chander Mohan and Vicky S/o Vinod Kumar were initially appointed with the Directorate General Employment and

Training under the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship as Group D employees now called MTS. The

service of these workmen was transferred from the Ministry of Skill Development for the Directorate General of

Employment. All the workmen are performing their duty in the grade pay of 1800, level 1 against the regular post of

MTS. But the mgt is paying them less wage in comparison to the regular counterparts working as Group D employees.

These workmen are getting the minimum wage fixed for unskilled workmen revised from time to time. But these

workmen are entitled to be granted regular pay scale with all allowance except the increments from the date of their

initial appointment at par with the regular Group D employees on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The

denial by the mgt to grant them equal pay and regularize their service amounts to unfair labour practice. All the efforts

made by the claimants by filing representations turned to be futile. Citing various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court the claimants have pleaded that they are working continuously for the mgt and have completed 240 days of

work in a calendar. On that account, they should have been regularized in service and granted equal pay for equal

work in view of the office memorandum no. 49014/2/86 Estt(C)dated 07.06.1988 issued by DOP&T. It has further

been stated that the workmen are within the minimum age group for regular appointment and they fulfilled all the

qualifying conditions. But the mgt by order dated 11.06.2019 changed the service condition of these workmen to daily

wagers. This change of service condition is violated of the principle led down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of FCI vs. FCI India. When the efforts of the claimants for regularization of their service and for grant of equal

pay for equal work failed, they approached the conciliation officer by raising a dispute. Steps were taken to conciliate

the dispute. But for the non-cooperative attitude of the mgt the conciliation failed and the appropriate govt. referred

the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication.

Though noticed the mgt did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte by order dated 01.08.2022. The claimant

filed the affidavit supporting the averments made in the claim petition and filed few documents which have been

marked in a series of WW/1 to WW1/5. These documents include Annexure A which includes the details of the

workmen including the date of their initial appointment and place of posting. WW1/2 is the office memorandum of the

mgt transferring the claimants to the mgt of Skill Development. WW1/3 is the office memorandum relating to the

recruitment of casual workers and persons on daily wage basis by which the service condition wage etc. of the casual

2190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workers has been laid down. WW/1/4 is the failure report of the conciliation officer and WW1/5 is the letter of

espousal.

The president of Janwadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union representing the claimants testified as ww1. They

fully supported the claim averments and stated that the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Surender Singh and

Ors vs. Engineer in Chief CPWD have clearly held that the persons engaged as a daily rated workers are entitled to

be regularized in the time scales on completion of 6 months of their continuous service. In this case the claimants are

working continuously in the mgt w.e.f from 08.02.2013 and 05.05.2014. They purchased requisite qualification for

appointment against the permanent post of MTS. This evidence of the witness for the claimants has not been

challenged since the mgt has been proceeded ex-parte. Thus from the uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence by

the claimants it is evidently clear that the workmen of this proceeding are working continuously for the mgt since the

date of their initial appointment and have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. This entitles them for

regularization of service in absence of the proof that the claimants do not meet the qualification criteria or there are no

vacancy. Hence, considering the evidence of the claimant it is held that the claimants entitled to the relief sought for.

The Ld A/R for the claimants by citing the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Bangalore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Etc., Etc. vs. A. Rajappa and others, Etc. Etc. reported in 1978-LLJ-I-349

submitted that all the triple test prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme court to test if an establishment comes under the

definition of industry are fulfilled by the mgt. Hence it is concluded that the mgt is an industry. Hence considering the

submission and the evidence on behalf of the claimant it is concluded that the claimants are entitled to the regular pay

scale with all allowances except the annual increments from the initial date of their appointment. They are also

entitled to regularize in service in the time scale from the date they completed first initial 6 months of employment.

Hence ordered

ORDER

The reference be and the same is answered in favour of the claimant it is held that the claimants are entitled

to regular pay scale at par with the regular employees who are their counterparts including all allowances except the

annual increments. The claimants are held further entitled to regularization of their service on the date they completed

6 months from the date of initial appointment. The mgt no.1 is directed to grant the equal pay for equal work and the

differential arrear to the claimants from the date of their initial appointment and their service shall be regularize on the

date when they completed first 6 month of their service. The financial benefits granted to the claimants shall be paid

by the mgt within two months from the date when the award is published failing which the amount show accrued shall

carry interests at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of accrual and till the final payment is made. This

award is passed in respect of those employees whose list has been annexed to this award as annexure A:-

List of the workmen

Sl. No.

Name

Father’s Name

Category

Post

Date

Joining

Educational

qualification

Appointed

through

Rajesh

Kumar

Narayan Singh

O.B.C

Daily

Wager

(M.T.S)

15.05.2021

10^th pass

Employment

Exchange

Kanwar Lal

Late Sh. Ram

Phool

S.C.

Daily

Wager

(M.T.S

12.05.2006

10^th pass

Employment

Exchange

Ramnivas

Rishi Raj

General

Daily

Wager

(M.T.S

12.05.2008

10^th pass

Employment

Exchange

Vedpal

OmPrakash

O.B.C

Daily

Wager

(M.T.S

Jan-07

10^th pass

Employment

Exchange

Satish

Kumar

Balkishan

O.B.C

Daily

Wager

(M.T.S

Mar-09

12^th pass

Employment

Exchange

Harish

Chand

Dhamka

S.C.

Daily

Wager

(M.T.S

11.01.2010

12^th pass

Employment

Exchange

Smt. Sheela

D/o Sh. Ram

Kishor

S.C

Daily

Wager

(M.T.S

01.04.2012

8^th pass

Directly

through the

office of mgt

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the ID

act 1947.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2203

नई दिल्ली, 22 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1089.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार श्री प्रभुनाथ मसंह, के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और श्री गोपाल कुमार शुर्कला, कामगार, के बीच अनुबंि में वनर्दाष्ट

औद्योवगक न्द्यायाविकरण, पटना के पंचाट (संदभा संख्या 05 (C) of 2019) को जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को

प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 02.06.2023 को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. एल-42012/22/2019-vkbZvkj (डीयू)]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2023

S.O. 1089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05 (C) of 2019) of the Industrial Tribunal, Patna as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to Shri Prabhunath Singh, and Shri Gopal

Kumar Shukla,Worker, which was received along with soft copy of the award by the Central Government on

02.06.2023

[No. L-42012/22/2019-IR (DU)]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

Reference Case No.:- 05 (C) of 2019

Between the management of Shri Prabhunath Singh, At –Alampur, P.O- Lalapur Bhader Via Kahalgaon,

Bhagalpur (Bihar)-813203 and Their workman Sri Gopal Kumar Shukla, Vill + P.O- Maheshamundra, P.S-

Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur (Bihar)-813203.

For the management:-

None.

For the Workman:-

Sri Durgesh Prasad Sinha, Advocate.

Present:- MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.

AWARD

Patna, dated- 19^th September, 2022

By the adjudication order no.-L-42012/22/2019-IR(DU) dated- 11.06.2019 the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi has referred under clause (d) of sub-section-(1) and sub-section-(2A) of section-10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, ( hereinafter to be referred to as “ the Act”), the following dispute between The

management of Sri Prabhunath Singh, At- Alampur, PO- Lalapur Bhader Via Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur (Bihar)-813203

and Their workman Sri Gopal Kumar Shukla, Vill-PO- Maheshamunda, PS- Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur (Bihar)-813203

for adjudication to this tribunal:-

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/S P.N.Singh-Contractor to Principal Employer

NTPC, Kahalgaon, Bihar- to terminate the services w.e.f August 2017 of the workman Sh.

Gopal Kumar Shukla, appointed in 2015,without paying his outstanding due of wages, Leave

Encashment and Terminal Benefit was correct? If not,what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

2. After receipt of the reference / notification, notices were issued to the parties concerned. Management did not

appear before this tribunal but workman himself present before this tribunal and also filed a vakalatnama 14.08.2019

deputing Shri Durgesh Prasad Sinha, Advocate to represent his case but inspite of knowledge and availing

opportunities did not file any Statement of claim.

3. From perusal of the case record, it appears that on 20.11.2019 workman appeared before this tribunal and

filed a petition regarding for issuance of corrigendum written by workman himself to Sri Aman Topo,

23.08.2022 continuously. As per order it appears that two registered notice were sent to the workman vide memo no.-

113 dated- 25.04.2022 through registered post no.- RF234810921IN dt- 27.04.2022 and several notice is issued to the

2204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

both parties vide memo no.- 179 dt- 15.07.2022 through registered post no.- RF 228522705IN and RF 228522719IN

dt- 19.07.2022 but even after issuance of registered notice, both parties never turn-up. From perusal of the case

records, it also shows that registered notice is not returned back to this tribunal, it means registered notice is well

served upon the workman and workman did not turn-up to establish his claim before tribunal since 20.11.2019. It all

shows that workman has no grievance and thus lost interest in this case. So as per the aforesaid reasons for passing “

no dispute award thus this tribunal pass “No Dispute Award” accordingly. This award is effected after date of

publication in gazette.

This is my award accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

MANOJ SHANKAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1090.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

69/2006) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/2/2006-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2023

S.O. 1090.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/06/2023

[No. L-22012/2/2006–IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 69 OF 2006

PARTIES: Mahabir Bhuia

Vs.

Management of New Kenda Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

31.05.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/2/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 24.10.2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their

workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area of M/s.

ECL in dismissing Sri Mahabir Bhuia w.e.f. 22.3.2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief is the workman entitled? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/2/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 24.10.2006 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 69 of 2006 was registered on 31.10.2006

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2205

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate appeared for Eastern Coalfields Limited. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, representing

the workman submitted that he could not produce Mahabir Bhuia for cross-examination. On repeated calls at 01:10

PM Mahabir Bhuia is found absent. The case was fixed up on 23.05.2023 for appearance of workman as a special

chance for his cross-examination, in default a No Dispute Award is to be passed.

3. Since the aggrieved workman failed to appear after sufficient opportunity given and due to long absence of

the workman it is presumed that he has no dispute with Eastern Coalfields Limited. Let a No Dispute Award be

passed.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1091.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

41/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/177/2012-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2023

S.O. 1091.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/06/2023

[No. L-22012/177/2012 –IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

PRESENT: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 41 OF 2012

PARTIES: Coal Mines Security Guards Association.

Vs.

Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workmen: General Secretary, Coal Mines Security Guards Association.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

31.05.2023

2206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/177/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 19.11.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria and their workmen for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether non-payment of double wages to security guards of M/s. ECL HQ for

deployment on rest days is legal/justified? To what relief they are entitled to? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/177/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 19.11.2012 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 41 of 2012 was registered on 10.12.2012

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. The case is fixed up today for

cross-examination of workman Witness. No witness for the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited has turned up.

Notice was issued to the General Secretary, Coal Mines Security Guards Association, ECL Head Quarter, Sanctoria

under registered post but no union representative has turned up.

3. Written Statements were filed by the workmen as well as by the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Initially Ghanashyam Shaw , Krishna Routh and Sudama Singh filed affidavit-in-chief in support of their cases,

claiming payment of double wages for the security guards for their deployment on rest days. Witnesses did not turn

up to cross-examination. In course of time workmen remained unrepresented. Under such facts and circumstances, I

have no option but to presume that concerned workmen are not interested to proceed with the Industrial Dispute. The

Reference case is accordingly disposed of in the form of a No Dispute Award. Inform the Ministry accordingly.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in

duplicate be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and

Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1092.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

26/2012) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/68/2012-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2023

S.O. 1092.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/06/2023

[No. L-22012/68/2012 –IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2207

REFERENCE CASE NO. 26 OF 2012

PARTIES: Narayan Karmakar

Vs.

Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Narayan Karmakar, the workman.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

30.05.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/68/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2012 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for

adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of J. K. Nagar Colliery of M/s. ECL in not

payment HRA @ 10% of Basic Pay to Sri Narayan Karmakar is fair and justified? To

what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/68/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 18.05.2012 from the Govt. of India, Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 26 of 2012 was registered on 25.06.2012

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

2. Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited is present. Narayan

Karmakar, ex-employee appeared after service of fresh Notice. The case is fixed up today for appearance and filing

written statement as last chance.

3. After registering this case Notices were issued to both parties but no written statement has been filed. After

service of fresh Notice upon the aggrieved workman, he appeared before this Tribunal today. On examining Narayan

Karmakar, he stated that he was employed at J. K. Nagar Colliery, Satgram Area but he has no dispute regarding

House Rent Allowance and he has already retired from service in December, 2017. Heard learned advocate for

Eastern Coalfields Limited. It appears to me that the concerned workman is not inclined to proceed with this Industrial

Dispute relating to House Rent Allowance. Under such circumstances, the reference is disposed of in the form of a

No Dispute Award.

Hence,

ORDERED

that a No Dispute Award be drawn up in respect of the above Reference. Let copies of the Award in duplicate

be sent to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1093.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

2208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

46/2005) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/113/2004--vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2023

S.O. 1093.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/06/2023

[No. L-22012/113/2004 –IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE No. 46 OF 2005

PARTIES: Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) and

Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma).

Vs.

Management of Satgram Area of ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Employee: Mr. M. K. Bandopadhyay, learned advocate.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

22.05.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/113/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 30.05.2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the

employer, that is the Management of Satgram Area of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their employees for adjudication

by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in selection of Staff Nurses from

Technical Supervisor Grade ‘B’ to Grade ‘C’ conducted on the basis of merit cum seniority is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief Smt. Bandana Chowdhury and Smt. Chandra Nag

Roy are entitled? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/113/2004-IR(CM-II) dated 30.05.2005 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 46 of 2005 was registered on 04.07.2005

and an order was passed issuing Notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit

their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses. Both parties

appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2209

The crux of the issue in this case is embedded in the grievance of two Staff Nurses of Satgram Area Hospital

of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL) who were not promoted from their post of Staff Nurse

in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ to Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’. The

Management filed their written statement on 06.01.2006 and the aggrieved nursing staff submitted their written

statement through union on 28.07.2006. the case has a checkered track record. Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury and Mrs.

Chandra Nag Roy filed their affidavit-in-chief on 11.06.2013 and faced cross-examination on 20.08.2013. the

Tribunal was laying vacant from 23.10.2013 to 20.05.2014. The case was thereafter fixed for evidence of

Management witness on 06.01.2015, in default for argument but no evidence was adduced. Parties were absent from

06.01.2015 to 23.10.2018. The Tribunal was laying vacant from 21.11.2018 to 31.08.2022 due to want of regular

Presiding Officer.

On 13.03.2023 Mr. Sanjay Bhowmik, Area Personnel Manager, Satgram Area, ECL was examined as

Management witness-1. Three important documents were produced as Exhibit M-1, M-2, and M-3. Exhibit M-1 is a

Note Sheet of ECL dated 04.02.2000 relating to two vacancies arising in the post of Senior Staff Nurse in Technical

and Supervisory Grade ‘B’, proposing constitution of Departmental Promotional Committee (hereinafter referred to as

DPC) for assessment of the suitability of then existing eligible Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ for

promotion as Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’. Exhibit M-2 is a letter dated 14.04.2000

issued by the Personnel Manager, Satgram Area, ECL addressed to Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Satgram Area

Hospital informing him that the DPC will meet on 19.04.2000 in the chamber of the Personnel Manager, Satgram

Area and also requested him to advise all eligible candidates to appear before the committee along with original

certificates and testimonials. Exhibit M-3 is a Note Sheet dated 03.05.2000 which laid down the criteria for

ascertaining merit for recommendation of candidates for promotion which was as per cadre scheme i.e. merit-cum-

seniority basis. The Note Sheet further disclosed the criteria for ascertaining merit and the marks for considering

merit, qualification, and length of service of candidates. The report of the DPC with their recommendation has been

produced on Page No. 2 of Exhibit M-3.

The contention of the two Staff Nurses is that Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma) who initially joined the

service in Technical Grade ‘D’ was upgraded to Technical Grade ‘C’ on 11.07.1991 as per Office Order dated

9/10.02.1993 and Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) was upgraded to Technical Grade ‘C’ on 31.05.1992 and

are working at Satgram Area Hospital. It is their case that Mrs. Soma Sikdar (Dutta) and Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee

who are junior to the petitioners on their promotion from Grade ‘D’ to Grade ‘C’ have been granted promotion from

Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ to Grade ‘B’ as paramedical Staff Nurses superseding the

petitioners. It is urged that for the purpose of promotion the only consideration should be seniority and not the

qualification of the concerned Staff Nurse. It is their case that Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma) has additional

qualification of Bachelor of Commerce and Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) has a Bachelor of Arts degree

but such qualification was not taken into consideration for granting of promotion to the post of Senior Staff Nurse in

Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’. It is their case that passing of Class-XII examination and ‘A’ Grade diploma

certificate from a recognized nursing institute is the minimum qualification. The Management of ECL has exceeded

its jurisdiction by taking into consideration extraneous criteria beyond what is laid down in the “Cadre Scheme” for

promotion of medical Staff Nurses. It has been asserted that the criteria for promotion from Technical and Supervisory

Grade ‘C’ to Grade ‘B’ is seniority and not merit-cum-seniority. It is pointed out that there is no adverse report against

Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma) and Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay). Furthermore, they are the senior

most nurses in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ and ought to have been promoted to Grade ‘B’. It is urged that

there was no necessity for considering four Staff Nurses for the purpose of promotion. The two aggrieved nurses have

asserted that the Management’s decision to consider merit-cum-seniority as criteria for promotion is contrary to the

provisions of “Cadre Scheme” for promotion of para medical Staff Nurses. The petitioner claimed that the promotion

granted to Mrs. Soma Sikdar (Dutta) and Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee are required to be cancelled and Mrs. Chandra Nag

Roy (Sharma) and Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) be promoted to the post of Senior Staff Nurse in

Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ w.e.f. 02.06.2000.

The claim for promotion of the two Staff Nurses has been contested by the Management by filing written

statement. It is submitted on behalf of the Management that two vacant posts of Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and

Supervisory Grade ‘B’ were approved and there were four candidates namely Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury

(Bhattacharyay), Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma), Mrs. Soma Sikdar (Dutta), and Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee who

were considered for the post. The DPC was constituted with approval of Satgram Area Authority to assess the

suitability of Staff Nurses from Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’. The DPC followed the rules framed under

National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA) - IV for cadre scheme for para medical staff. A

guideline was prepared by the committee which allotted a total mark of 100 for the purpose of Assement, out of which

60 marks was fixed for merit and remaining 40 marks was allotted under the seniority head. Out of 60 marks, 30

marks were fixed for CR and rest 30 marks apportioned under the merit head was fixed for educational qualification.

Out of 30 marks for CR, a person whose performance was remarked as “Outstanding” was to be granted the full mark

of 30, one whose remarks was “Very Good” would get 21 marks and one whose rank was “Good” would get 15

marks. Regarding educational qualification, a person having a Post Graduation degree would get full marks of 30, a

2210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

person having a Graduation degree would get 25 marks, a person having above School Final Certificate was allotted

20 marks, and a person having a School Final Certificate would get 15 marks. The marks allotted for the purpose of

seniority was 4 marks for each year of work as Staff Nurses.

According to the Management the DPC while evaluating their suitability had allotted 77 marks to

Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma), 78 marks to Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay), 83 marks to Mrs. Soma

Sikdar (Dutta) and 83 marks to Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee. As a result, Mrs. Soma Sikdar (Dutta) and Mrs. Sunanda

Mukherjee were declared promoted to the post of Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’. It is the

further case of the Management that candidates with higher educational qualification should get better advantage.

Therefore, contention of the union / employees do not have any force and the Management of ECL is legally justified

to hold that Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) and Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma) are not entitled to any

relief.

The point for consideration is whether the action of the Management by assessing the Staff Nurses for their

promotion from Grade ‘C’ to Grade ‘B’ on the basis of merit-cum-seniority is legal and justified and if Mrs. Bandana

Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) and Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma) to be treated as promoted w.e.f. June, 2000.

It has been argued by the learned advocate for the aggrieved Staff Nurses that Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy

(Sharma) was upgraded to the post of Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ from Grade ‘D’ on

11.07.1991. Whereas, others Mrs. Soma Sikdar (Dutta) was upgraded to Grade ‘C’ on 04.06.1992, Mrs. Bandana

Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) was upgraded 31.05.1992 and Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee was upgraded on 31.05.1992.

Therefore, considering their inter-cadre seniority and the required minimum qualification i.e. Matric plus ‘A’ Grade

Nursing certificate plus one year experience from recognized institute or one year experience in a 50 bedded and

above Hospital / Nursing Home, the petitioners ought to have been promoted. It is argued that Mrs. Soma Sikdar

(Dutta) and Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee who were juniors to them at the time of their upgradation to Technical and

Supervisory Grade ‘C’ cadre could not have been promoted to Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ on the basis of

their higher qualification. It is argued that higher qualification of having Master’s degree in Arts cannot be a criteria

for granting higher marks under the Merit head. It is further contended that for the purpose of rendering effective

service as a Staff Nurse it is their long experience which counts and is required to be the deciding factor for promotion

and not higher qualification of holding Master’s degree in Arts. Learned advocate argued that according to the

provisions for promotion in the cadre scheme of nursing staff NCWA – provides that seniority-cum-merit should be

considered instead of giving priority to persons holding higher educational qualification in the General Stream.

Learned advocate for the aggrieved employees argued that the DPC has violated the provisions by promoting

candidates who were juniors. It is argued that the promotion of Mrs. Soma Sikdar (Dutta) and Mrs. Sunanda

Mukherjee should be cancelled and the petitioners should be considered promoted in their place.

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate for the Management argued that due to promotion of two senior Staff

Nurse from Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ to the post of Senior Sister In-charge in Technical and Supervisory

Grade ‘A’ on 24.02.1998, two posts in Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ were declared

vacant and for the purpose of filling up the said two vacant posts a DPC was constituted on the basis of approval of

the policy. All existing four candidates in Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ were eligible for

consideration of their suitability to the promotional post. Note Sheet dated 03.05.2000 was initiated wherein, the

members of DPC laid down the procedure and the marks allocated under different heads for considering the criteria of

merit, consisting of CR and educational qualification and the length of service in the post of Staff Nurse in Technical

and Supervisory Grade ‘C’. Relying upon Page No. 2 of Exhibit M-3 which is DPC proceeding and marks allotted for

the post of Staff Nurse, it is argued by the learned advocate for ECL that the marks obtained by each candidate under

different criteria has clearly been stated and it would appear that Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee and Mrs. Soma Sikdar

(Dutta) have secured higher marks of 83 each. Therefore, there is no error on the part of DPC in arriving at the proper

finding. Learned advocate argued that though the length of service of Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma) is greater than

the others the remaining three including Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) have all been upgraded to Staff

Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ in 1993. All the four candidates have secured the same marks for their

past performance on the basis of their Grade ‘very good’. The only point on which the candidates were differently

marked are their educational qualification. Though Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma) in her cross-examination stated

that her educational qualification is Bachelor of Commerce, she admitted that she has obtained her Bachelor of

Commerce degree after joining the service and did not apply for permission for appearing in the Bachelor of

Commerce examination. Therefore, the DPC considered her academic qualification as Higher Secondary examination

only. In view of the higher qualification of the candidates including Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) marks

have been allotted to the candidates. Consistent with the decision of the DPC in their Note Sheet dated 03.05.2000

(Exhibit M-3). Learned advocate argued that there is no merit in this case and the same is required to be dismissed.

10.

I have traversed the dispute raised in the ‘Schedule’, the written statement filed by the Management and the

General Secretary of Colliery Mazdoor Sabha of India on behalf of the aggrieved Nurses and the evidence adduced by

parties. It appears to me that there is an apparent error in the ‘Schedule’ of the Industrial Dispute referred to this

Tribunal. The question which needs to be considered is the action of Management of ECL in selection of Staff Nurses

from Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’ to Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ and not in

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2211

respect of selection of Staff Nurses from Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ to Grade ‘C’. It is admitted on the part

of Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) and Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma), the two aggrieved Staff Nurses

that only two vacancies arose in the post of Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’. Therefore,

under no circumstance additional accommodation could be made for promoting the two aggrieved Staff Nurses even if

it is assumed that two nurses who failed to secure the promotional post have any merit in their favour. Mrs. Soma

Sikdar (Dutta) and Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee, the two Staff Nurses who have been declared promoted to the post of

Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ cannot be removed from their promotional post on the

demand of the aggrieved Staff Nurses without impleading them as parties or providing them opportunity of having

heard.

11.

It is appropriate to consider if there is any justification in the claim of the aggrieved nurses. In cross-

examination, Management witness-1, Mr. Sanjay Bhowmik deposed that there is a scheme in NCWA-V which lays

down the eligibility of promotion of candidates to Senior Staff Nurse. He deposed that as per Annexure-VI-5 (R) the

mode of promotion will be on the basis of recommendation of DPC and stated the qualification will not be a bar for

promotion of existing nurses. In course of his examination the witness deposed that the DPC has power to set criteria

for selection and there is no specific rules related to the criteria for selection procedure. A copy of NCWA-V

Implementation Instruction No. 41 dated 09.07.1999 has been submitted on behalf of the Management. It appears

from the said document that Annexure-VI-5 (R) in respect of Paramedical Staff Nurses, approved by Standardization

Committee has been enclosed. It provides that the minimum educational qualification for promotion to Senior Staff

Nurse in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘B’ is “10+2 plus ‘A’ Grade Nursing Diploma or Certificate from a

recognized Institute approved by the Govt”. The eligibility of the candidate for promotion is “3 years of experience in

‘C’ plus 1 (one) year experience in T&S Gr. ‘C’ as Trainee”. Annexure-VI-5 (R) of revised cadre scheme lays down

the minimum qualification. It obviously implies that the weightage can be given by the DPC to the person having

higher qualification, if other conditions are same. So far as experience and eligibility for promotion is concerned the

base line of experience is a total period of four years as Staff Nurses in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘C’,

inclusive of one year as trainee. The DPC decided to give weightage to service experience by allotting 4 (four) marks

for each additional year of service. Therefore, the contention of learned advocate for the aggrieved Staff Nurses that

the assessment of seniority-cum-merit should be the criteria for promotion to Grade ‘B’ is not tenable.

12.

There is no material to establish that the decision of DPC in selecting Mrs. Soma Sikdar (Dutta) and Mrs.

Sunanda Mukherjee is vitiated due to non-compliance of criteria laid down in NCWA-V Implementation Instruction

No. 41 dated 09.07.1999. The aggrieved Staff Nurses failed to produce any Clause in the NCWA applicable to the

Cadre Scheme, wherein it is laid down that the promotion of eligible candidate should be considered on seniority-

cum-merit and not on merit-cum-seniority. At the time of appearing before the DPC on 20.04.2000 all the four

candidates have completed their minimum period of service experience. Marks were allotted to them on the basis of

the length of their service. Therefore, seniority of the candidates was taken into account. It appears that the

performance reports of all the four candidates are same and they have been granted “Very Good” which earned each

of them 21 marks. The next criteria for assessment was their academic qualification, for which full marks fixed was

30. A candidate having passed Matriculation / School Final Examination was granted 15 marks. Those having

qualification above School Final, which includes Higher Secondary were allotted 20 marks. Graduates were allotted

25 marks and candidates with Master degree were allotted 30 marks. The distinguishing criteria which provided lead

to Mrs. Soma Sikdar (Dutta) and Mrs. Sunanda Mukherjee was their higher qualification, though the same had no

contribution to their performance as Staff Nurse in any manner. In this context it would not be out of place to mention

that the criteria of academic qualification could not be entirely left aside in the matter of promotion of any staff,

whether in the case of Staff Nurse or an employee in any other capacity working in the establishment. Therefore, the

DPC had rightly taken into account the academic qualification of all the eligible candidates as one of the criteria for

considering inter se merit of the candidates for the purpose of their promotion.

13.

However, it is made clear that whenever vacancy arise in the post of Senior Staff Nurse in Technical and

Supervisory Grade ‘B’ the same criteria should apply for promotion so that by dint of seniority the petitioners herein

get an opportunity to avail such promotion.

14.

In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hold that the findings of the DPC is correct and there is no merit in the

claim for promotion of Mrs. Bandana Chowdhury (Bhattacharyay) and Mrs. Chandra Nag Roy (Sharma).

Hence,

ORDERED

that the Reference case is dismissed on contest. Let an Award be drawn up in light of my above findings. Let

copies of the Award in duplicate be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India

for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

2212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 23 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1094.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

22/2007) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/324/2006-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2023

S.O. 1094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 22/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/06/2023.

[No. L-22012/324/2006 –IR (CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE NO. 22 OF 2007

PARTIES: Basdeb Rajwar

Vs.

Management of Ratibati Colliery of ECL

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. S. K. Pandey, Union representative.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

31.05.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order No. L-

22012/324/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 19.03.2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute between the employer,

that is the Management of Ratibati Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman for adjudication by this

Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of Ratibati Colliery of M/s. ECL in dismissing Sri

Basdeb Rajwar from service w.e.f. 27.09.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is

the workman entitled? ”

1. On receiving Order No. L-22012/324/2006-IR(CM-II) dated 19.03.2007 from the Govt. of India, Ministry

of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 22 of 2007 was registered on 03.05.2007

and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post, directing them to appear and submit their

written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims and a list of witnesses.

2. The case was fixed up on 23.05.2023 for substitution of legal heirs. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned advocate

appeared for the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited. No step was taken by the union representative. The case

is pending since long. Ample opportunity has been given to Mr. S. K. Pandey, union representative to substitute legal

heirs of the deceased but no steps has been taken. Under such facts and circumstances the Industrial Dispute stands

dismissed for default.

Hence,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2213

ORDERED

that the Reference case is dismissed. An award be drawn up in the light of the above observation. Let copies

of the Award in duplicate be communicated to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India for

information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1095.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa]

dsUnzh; ljdkj ई.सी.एल. ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k–सि–Je U;k;ky;] आसनसोल ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

11/2011) dks izdkf”kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20@06@2023 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[सं. एल-22012/58/2011-vkbZ vkj (सी.एम-II)]

मजणकंिन. एन, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2023

S.O. 1095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the Management of E.C.L. and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20/06/2023

[No. L-22012/58/2011 -IR(CM-II)]

MANIKANDAN. N, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL.

Present: Shri ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T-cum-L.C., Asansol.

REFERENCE CASE No. 11 OF 2011

PARTIES: Rajendra Mahato.

Vs.

Management of MIC Jhanjra Project of ECL.

REPRESENTATIVES:

For the Union/Workman: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, President, Koyala Mazdoor Congress.

For the Management:

Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate.

INDUSTRY:

Coal.

STATE:

West Bengal.

Dated:

29.05.2023

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour, vide its Order

No. L-22012/58/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 01.07.2011 and Corrigendum dated 23.08.2011 has been pleased to refer the

following dispute between the employer, that is the Management of MIC Jhanjra Project of Eastern Coalfields

Limited and their workman for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of MIC Jhanjra Project, M/s. Eastern Coalfields

Limited in not considering the date of birth recorded of Shri Rajendra Mahato, RH Crew, in

2214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Matriculation Certificate as 12.02.1974 is legal and justified? To what relief the workman

concerned is entitled to? ”

On receiving Order No. L-22012/58/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 01.07.2011 and Corrigendum dated 23.08.2011

from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a Reference case No. 11 of

2011 was registered on 18.07.2011 and an order was passed issuing notice to the parties through registered post,

directing them to appear and submit their written statements along with relevant documents in support of their claims

and a list of witnesses. Both parties appeared before the Tribunal through their authorized representatives.

In gist, the fact of the workman’s case disclosed in the written statement is that Rajendra Mahato, designated

as RH Crew at the time of submission of his application for employment had stated his date of birth as 12.02.1974

mentioned in his Matriculation Certificate. As per guidelines issued by Coal India Limited through Implementation

Instruction No. - 76, the date of birth of an employee recorded in his Matriculation Certificate should be accepted. It

is stated in his written statement that the Management of Eastern Coalfields Limited (hereinafter referred to as ECL)

has sent Rajendra Mahato for Initial Medical Examination (hereinafter referred to as IME). The Board decided his age

as “Twenty-four (24) years as on 30.06.1995”. The Appointment Letter was issued by the Management on the basis

of the age assessed by the doctors of IME Board and allowed him to join at Jhanjra Project. At the time of his

employment proceeding Rajendra Mahato did not know the age assessed by the IME Board and for such reason he

did not raise his protest. On receiving his letter of appointment, he found his age was recorded incorrectly and raised

objection but he was advised to join his duty first. He produced his Matriculation Certificate before the Management

of Jhanjra Project but after long persuasion by the workman and union no action was taken, for such reason the union

decided to raise this Industrial Dispute. It has been claimed that date of birth of Rajendra Mahato should be corrected

as 12.02.1974 in all the service records of the company with intimation to him.

In response the Management of ECL filed a written statement stating that the union has no valid ground or

reason for raising the Industrial Dispute over alleged discrepancy of the date of birth of the concerned employee.

According to the Management of ECL the concerned workman was appointed at Kajora Area under Clause 9.4.0 of

National Coal Wage Agreement (hereinafter referred to as NCWA) and his Appointment Letter No. KA/PM/C-

6/18(D):52/2174 dated 24.09.1997 was issued by the General Manager of Kajora Area, ECL, wherein his date of

birth was recorded as “Twenty-four (24) years as on 30.06.1995”. Further case of the Management is that in the

appointment letter the date of birth has been recorded as per the report of Pre-Employment Medical Examination in

Form - III and on the basis of such date of birth in the appointment letter, the age of workman has been recorded as

twenty-four years on 30.06.1995 in all official records as well as in Form ‘B’ Register. The concerned employee has

accepted relevant contents of the appointment letter and Form ‘B’ Register by putting his signature and he never

raised dispute about his age at the time of his appointment. It is contended that the claim of the workman through

union has no foundation in the eye of law and his claim for correction of date of birth is not justified.

In support of his case Rajendra Mahato filed his affidavit-in-chief and was cross-examined on behalf of the

Management of ECL. Subsequently, the workman witness was re-examined on recall. Wherein, he has produced a

copy of his Identity Card issued by ECL as Exhibit W-1, a copy of his Appointment Letter dated 24.09.1997 as

Exhibit W-2, a copy of Attestation Form submitted before Management of ECL before joining service as Exhibit W-

3, a copy of his Admit Card of Madhyamik examination under Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti as Exhibit W-4, a

copy of the Madhyamik Certificate as Exhibit W-4/1, a copy of the Marksheet of Secondary School Examination of

Bihar School Examination Board, Patna as Exhibit W-4/2, a copy of School Leaving Certificate issued by R. N. S.

Uchchya Vidyalaya, Samastipur as Exhibit W-4/3. In this matter a copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated

22.05.2007 between the Employer Company and workman’s Union regarding resolving age dispute been produced as

Exhibit W-5). A copy of Office Order dated 25.11.2014 regarding determination of Date of Birth as Exhibit W-6.

In his cross-examination the witness deposed that he raised the objection against the wrong entry of his date of birth

in the year 2011 and denied that the date of birth appearing in the Form ‘B’ Register, Service Book, Pension Scheme -

3 Form and Pension Scheme - 4 Form of the company are correct.

Mr. Abhijit Chakraborty, Senior Officer (Personnel) at Jhanjra Project Colliery under Jhanjra Area of ECL

has been examined as Management witness – 1. He has filed affidavit-in-chief in support of the employer’s case. In

his affidavit-in-chief the witness stated the age of Rajendra Mahato has been recorded as “Twenty-four (24) years as

on 30.06.1995” on the basis of the report of Pre-Employment Medical Examination. The witness has produced copy

of letter of appointment as Exhibit M-1, a copy of the Medical Report in Form – IV of the workman prepared at the

time of his appointment as Exhibit M-2, a copy of Medical Report in Form – III which is a Pre-Employment Medical

Examination report as Exhibit M-3, copy of Service Book of the workman as Exhibit M-4, a copy of Form ‘B’ of the

employee as Exhibit M-5, and copy of Copy Forms PS-4 and PS-3 of the employee in respect of his pension scheme

as Exhibit M-6 and M-7 respectively. In course of his cross-examination the Management witness -1 admitted that the

candidate has submitted his Attestation Form where he stated his date of birth and educational qualification. Exhibit

W-3 is the Attestation Form which was submitted by the employee and considered at the time of his appointment

reveals that his date of birth is recorded as 12.02.1974 in column no.- 7. The witness has further deposed that for

determining the age of new appointees under Implementation Instruction No. -76, Clause A (i), date of birth stated in

the Matriculation Certificate is accepted. It is further stated that the Management of the company was not aware if the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2215

workman filed his Matriculation Certificate at the time of his appointment. The witness averred that the he did not

submit Matriculation Certificate in course of his employment as such we did not have the occasion to verify his age.

The Management has placed reliance upon the report of the IME Board which assessed the age of Rajendra Mahato as

twenty-four years as on 30.06.1995.

It is argued by Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Union representative that at the time of appointment in service Rajendra

Mahato had submitted his Attestation Form (Exhibit W-3) wherein, his date of birth was recorded as 12.02.1974 and

his age at the relevant time was twenty-one years. His educational qualification was recorded in Paragraph – (10) as

having Passed School Final Examination. It is vehemently argued that the Management of the company ought to have

considered the contents of the Attestation Form and the date of birth of the workman should have been recorded

correctly as 12.02.1974 in his letter of appointment instead of entering an approximate age as twenty-four years as on

30.06.1995. It is argued on behalf of the aggrieved workman that the employer company was duty bound to follow

Clause A (i) of Implementation Instruction No. 76 which mandates that the date of birth of a person recorded in the

Matriculation Certificate of a person was to be accepted as the official date of birth and any lapse on the part of the

Management would subjected the workman to suffering. It is urged that the date of birth of Rajendra Mahato recorded

as twenty-four years as on 30.06.1995 in his appointment letter on the basis of IME cannot be substituted to his actual

date of birth appearing in his Matriculation Certificate.

Responding to the argument of the workman Mr. P. K. Das, learned advocate for the Management of ECL

argued that the date of birth recorded in the appointment letter was within the knowledge of the workman and he

accepted the said entry by putting his signature and thereby admitted that his age was twenty-four years as on

30.06.1995. It is contended that in all official record i.e. Pre-Employment Medical Examination Form No. IV (Exhibit

M-2), Report of Pre-Employment Medical Examination Form No. III (Exhibit M-3), Excerpt of Service Book of the

employee (Exhibit M-4), Form ‘B’ Register (Exhibit M-5), Nomination Form of Coal Mine Provident Fund (Exhibit

M-6), and in Form PS-3 disclosing particulars of family (Exhibit M-7), the date of birth of the employee was recorded

either as twenty-four years as on 30.06.1995 or the date of birth was noted as 30.06.1971. it is argued that due to such

discrepancy in the age of the employee recorded in the official record, the report of IME, which assessed his age as

twenty-four years on 30.06.1995 would prevail. Therefore, the claim of the employee that his date of birth is

12.02.1974 cannot succeed and Industrial Dispute raised by the workman is liable to be dismissed.

In the backdrop of rival contentions, it is now necessary to ascertain whether the date of birth of Rajendra

Mahato should be considered as 12.02.1974 or the same should be treated as twenty-four years as on 30.06.1995 on

the basis of the report of the IME Board which is also mentioned in the appointment letter of the workman. I have

considered the argument advanced by learned advocate for the Management of ECL and the Union representative for

the workman. It is undisputed that Attestation Form was submitted by the employee disclosing his relevant particulars

of age and qualification before he was employed under ECL. The document has been produced as Exhibit W-3 and no

objection was raised at the time of admission of the document. The date of birth appearing in Paragraph - (7) of the

Form is 12.02.1974 and Paragraph – (10) discloses that he passed his School Final Examination from R. N. S. High

School, in the District of Darbhanga. The workman produced a certificate from Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti

dated 25.11.1992 wherein, the date of birth of Rajendra Mahato is stated as 12.02.1974 and that he passed his

‘Madhyamik Pariksha’ in the year 1992 (document has been marked as Exhibit W-4/1). A copy of Admit Card issued

by Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti in the name of Rajendra Mahato also indicates his date of birth as 12.02.1974

(document is produced as Exhibit W-4). A copy of Marksheet of Secondary School Examination of Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna has been produced to show that Rajendra Mahato has passed his Secondary School

Examination in the year 1992, in the second division (document is produced as Exhibit W-4/2). A copy of School

Leaving Certificate (Exhibit W-4/3) issued by the Head Master of R.N.S High School, Singhiaghat (Samastipur)

dated 05.09.1992 shows that his date of was birth recorded as 12.02.1974. All the documents produced by the

workman has proved beyond doubt that he has passed his School Final Examination of Bihar School Examination

Board, Patna in the year 1992 and his date of birth recorded in the relevant documents of the said Examination Board

is 12.02.1974. All these documents support the date of birth of the workman mentioned in his Attestation Form.

Therefore, I do not find any rhyme or reason in the action of the Management in recording the age of the candidate as

“Twenty-four (24) years as on 30.06.1995” on the basis of IME at the time of his appointment. The concern authority

cannot be blindfolded by not considering the date of birth and educational qualification of the workman mentioned in

his Attestation Form. The Management cannot record a wrong date of birth of a person who passed a public

examination from a recognized Board of Examination of a state government. Any lapse on the part of the

Management unintentionally or consciously in recording a wrong date of birth cannot be accepted when substantive

evidence is available in support of his correct date of birth. We should be abreast with the provisions of Clause A (i)

of Implementation Instruction No. 76 relating to determination of age at the time of appointment which lays down as

follows :

“ Matriculates.

In the case of appointees who have passed Matriculation or equivalent examinations, the date of birth recorded in

the said certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same will not be altered under any

circumstances.”

2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It is a matter of ordinary prudence to take into consideration the educational qualification of a person at the

time of his appointment in service. When a person has passed his Matriculation Examination and clearly stated the

same in his Attestation Form. Management should not feign ignorance of such fact unless it is found that the

documents produced before the Management are product of fraud leading to misrepresentation of facts. There is no

such occasion in the present case. The recording of the age of the candidate as per IME Report is a sheer denial of the

truth. It appears to me that the Management has failed to carry out their responsibility diligently in not verifying

documents relating to educational qualification of Rajendra Mahato which bears his date of birth and by obtaining his

signature in the appointment letter wherein a wrong age was recorded.

10.

In view of my above discussion I hold that the Management of the company has failed to carryout their

responsibility by not recording the correct date of birth of Rajendra Mahato appearing in his Madhyamik Certificate

issued by Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti and School Leaving Certificate. Such act is contrary to the Implementation

Instruction No. 76. The Management of MIC Jhanjra Project of ECL is directed to rectify the date of birth of Rajendra

Mahato in all the official records consistent with his date of birth appearing in the School Final Certificate, issued by

Bihar Vidyalaya Pariksha Samiti within two (2) months from the date of Notification. The Industrial Dispute is

accordingly decided in favour of workman.

Hence,

ORDERED

that an Award be drawn up in favour of workman. The Management of MIC Jhanjra Project of ECL is

directed to record the date of birth of Rajendra Mahato as 12.02.1974 in place of twenty-four years as on 30.06.1995

within two (2) months from the date of Notification. Let copies of the Award in duplicate be sent to the Ministry of

Labour and Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for information and Notification.

ANANDA KUMAR MUKHERJEE, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1096.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj बैंक ऑफ मिाराष्ट्र ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2 कोल्िापुर ds iapkV (02/2008) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2023-आई आर (ch-II)-30]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2023

S.O. 1096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 02/2008) of the Industral Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.-2,

Kolhapur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Maharashtra

and their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2023– IR(B-1I) -30]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL COURT NO.02, KOLHAPUR

REFERENCE (I.T.) NO.02/2008. EXH.O-

The Regional Manager,

Bank of Maharashtra,

Tarabai Chowk, Kolhapur.

.. First Party

V/s.

Shri. Milind Yashwant Kamble,

Baba Jarag Nagar, Plot No.01,

Layout No.02, Maratha Bank Road,

Kolhapur.

.. Second Party

CORAM :-

Shri. S. D. Suryawanshi, Presiding Officer. J. O. Code :- MH02959.

APPEARANCE :-

For First Party :- Ld. Adv. Shri. B. D. Manolkar

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2217

For Second Party :- Ld. Adv. Shri. U. B. Jadhav

AWARD

(Decided on this 20^th day of March, 2023)

Under Section-10, Sub-Section-1 (d) and Sub-Section-(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the

appropriate Government has referred present dispute for adjudication of scheduled that, “Whether the action of the

Management of Bank of Maharashtra, Kolhapur in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on Shri. Milind

Yashwant Kamble vide order dated 21/12/2004 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to”. Accordingly, notices were issued to the Bank i.e. first party and workman i.e. the second party. The

second party appeared and filed his statement-of-claim at Exh.U-05 and first party filed its Written Statement at

Exh.C-04.

After perusal of statement-of-claim it appears that, the second party workman was employed by first party

Bank on and from 27/12/2004 on the post of Peon. According to him during his service tenure, he has not committed

any misconduct. However, first party has issued charge-sheet dated 06/04/2004 and alleged some false and bogus

misconduct. Before issuing charge-sheet no any show cause notice was served upon the second party. However, he

has replied to the charge-sheet vide explanation dated 17/08/2004. To conduct Departmental Enquiry one Mr. S. R.

Utangale was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The second party is 10^th Class fail, therefore, he was not aware about

technicalities and also was not aware about the legal knowledge. Hence, he requested to be defended by Advocate

Representative. Considering the nature of charges alleged against him and considering the documents to be produced

it was necessary to grant the permission to be represented by Advocate Representative. But, said request was not

considered by Enquiry Officer. Hence, second party could not defend himself properly and he would not get

opportunity as per principles of natural justice.

The Enquiry Officer has not made aware about the procedure to be adopted while proceeding with the

enquiry. Further during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer and Management Representative using pressure

tactics completed enquiry and second party was assured that, no any serious action will be taken against him. Hence,

second party relying on assurance given by Senior Officer he was participated in the enquiry. During the course of

enquiry, the first party has not examined any witness or not told to the second party to adduce his evidence. Further

first party has not proved the documents from any witnesses and not provided the documents to the second party

which were filed in the enquiry proceeding. Hence, entire enquiry conducted against the second party and findings

recorded by Enquiry Officer are perverse.

The Enquiry Officer has recorded the findings on dated 16/09/2004 and first party has imposed the

punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 27/12/2004. Hence, punishment given to the second party is

not justified, therefore, second party was approached to the Appellate Authority vide appeal dated 07/02/2005.

However, Appellate Authority also not considered the appeal in proper sense and rejected the same.

Whatever charges are levelled against the second party is the subject matter of complaint lodged with the

C.B.I. The C.B.I. Officer raided to the Bank Officer Shri. Karande’s House and second party was called for enquiry.

Since the C.B.I. came to know that, the second party was innocent, therefore, no any action taken against the second

party. However, first party inspite of knowing that, the second party is not responsible even-though imposed

punishment of compulsory retirement. Therefore, he has approached to the appropriate Government and prayed that,

the punishment awarded to him is illegal, improper and he is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and

continuity of service.

If perused Written Statement filed by first party Bank therein it is contended that, second party workman was

working at Tarabai Chowk, Kolhapur Branch w.e.f. 14/06/1999 to 17/11/2003 as a Bill Collector. Admittedly, the

charge-sheet dated 06/04/2004 was issued to him for the misconduct committed by him while working at Tarabai

Chowk, Kolhapur Branch and those charges are :

(i) He did not give cheques received through Clearing to Officers for checking but gave it directly on the counter,

thereby, violating rules;

(ii) He misused Bill Purchase Facility;

(iii) He was indebted excessively;

(iv) Abnormal and extra-ordinary transaction in staff Saving Bank Account.

Thereafter, Departmental Enquiry was conducted and he was provided every opportunity to defend himself.

He was also allowed to present his witnesses and to cross-examine the Management witnesses. He was allowed to

defend his case with the help of Representative of the Union, of which he was the member. For conducting

Departmental Enquiry, Shri. S. R. Utangale, Senior Manager was appointed as an Enquiry Officer and Shri. V. S.

Prabhudesai was appointed as a Presenting Officer. The enquiry proceeding were held in the premises of Tarabai

Chowk, Kolhapur Branch on various dates. During the course of enquiry, second party has submitted his deposition

orally as well as in writing. The Presenting Officer also submitted his deposition in writing on behalf of the Bank.

2218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

During the course of Departmental Enquiry, all the charges levelled against second party have been proved. The report

of Enquiry Officer was provided to second party vide letter dated 16/09/2004, for offering his comments. On receipt

of Enquiry Officers report the Disciplinary Authority gave personal hearing to second party on 27/11/2004 and

informed him about the proposed punishment. During the said hearing no any new points / facts were put forth by

second party. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority found that, enquiry conducted against the delinquent was fair, proper

and was conducted by following principles of natural justice. In the result the second party workman imposed the

punishment of compulsory retirement vide final order dated 21/12/2004.

Being aggrieved by compulsory retirement second party had prefer appeal vide his letter dated 07/02/2005 to

the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority also gave personal hearing to the second party on 15/03/2005 along-with

his Defence Representative. However, second party did not put forth any new points / facts. Hence, the Appellate

Authority rejected the appeal and communicated to the second party vide its letter dated 18/03/2005. Aggrieved with

the decision of Appellate Authority once again the second party has submitted mercy petition to the General Manager

vide letter dated 20/04/2006. Said petition was also rejected by General Manager and communicated vide its letter

dated 18/07/2006. Thereafter, second party has raised dispute before the appropriate Government vide letter dated

13/08/2007 after lapse of almost one year and five months from the disposal of mercy petition. The first party has

brought to the notice of Regional Labour Commissioner submitting written statement dated 17/08/2007.

As far as statement-of-claim is concerned; the first party has submitted para wise reply as under :

On 27/12/2004 second party was working as a Sub-Staff / Bill Collector. However, it is denied that, the

charges levelled against the second party are false and incorrect. In fact, the Bank vide letter dated 15/11/2002 issued

show cause notice and advised him to submit his say with regards to the misconduct committed by him. Further as a

precautionary measures, the Bank had deputed second party at Turkewadi Branch from 07/10/2002. However, he

falsely stated that, no any show cause notice was issued before the charge-sheet. At the time of enquiry, Enquiry

Officer has clearly stated that, how the enquiry proceeding will take place and he was also made aware that, he could

be defended by Representative of Trade Union of which he is a member. Also in the enquiry proceeding, he was

granted opportunity to verify the documents and accordingly on 28/07/2004 second party has verified original

documents. On the said date the Presenting Officer submitted 16 documents and delinquent employee submitted 06

documents. Also on 30/07/2004, once again asked the second party whether he wants to produce any documents.

Finally, the Presenting Officer submitted written arguments on 09/08/2004 of which copy was provided to the second

party and he was directed to submit his defence argument before 18/08/2004. Accordingly, he has submitted the

written argument. Once again the Presenting Officer submitted his counter argument on 30/08/2004. In short, the

Enquiry Officer has provided reasonable opportunity to defend the case of second party and also provided opportunity

to inspect all the documents produced by Bank. Each and every stage opportunity was provided to the second party

and said opportunity was availed by second party.

The charges levelled against the second party were based on documentary evidence. Hence, there is no

question of taking oral witness in the enquiry when the charges were based on documents only. After completion of

enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding him guilty. Copy of enquiry report was given to the

second party. Accordingly, he has submitted his explanation vide letter dated 28/09/2004 and after carefully

evaluating the facts of the case, findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Bank communicated the proposed punishment

vide letter dated 23/11/2004. During the personal hearing no any new facts brought by second party and hence vide

final order dated 27/12/2004 he was imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement.

10)

As far as C.B.I. enquiry is concerned; C.B.I., Mumbai (External Agency) has filed charge-sheet against

another dismissed Clerk viz. Shri. S. Y. Karande who was directly involved in the fraud. Accordingly the proceeding

before the appropriate Court are going on. The charge-sheet issued to the second party is for the irregularities /

misconduct committed by him during the period of 14/06/1999 to 17/11/2003 while he was working as a Bill

Collector. Hence, the action taken by first party is proper and justifiable, therefore, second party is not entitled for any

relief.

11)

On the basis of rival pleadings of both the parties my learned Predecessor firstly on dated 24/09/2008 framed

issues. Thereafter, on 22/09/2009 said issues are amended and altered and out of those issues, issue No.02, 03 and 04

are treated as preliminary issues. As far as preliminary issues is concerned; my learned Predecessor vide Part-I Award

dated 09/08/2016 declared that, the Reference is maintainable and enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer is fair, legal

and findings of Enquiry Officer are proper. Hence, the Tribunal is expected to record the findings only on issues

No.01 and 05. Before recording the findings, it is necessary to mention herein that, the second party workman

aggrieved with the Part-I Award was approached before the Hon’ble High Court by filing Writ Petition

No.7815/2018. Said writ petition is disposed by Hon’ble High Court on dated 11/10/2022 observing that, there is no

justification for the petitioner to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Tribunal by questioning its decision

with regard to the Part-I Award at this stage. The Hon’ble High Court has given liberty to the petitioner to challenge

Part-I Award in appropriate proceedings after the final adjudication of Reference (I.T.) No.02/2008.

12)

As stated above the Hon’ble High Court disposed the writ petition by an order dated 11/10/2022, thereafter,

second party has lead his evidence by filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief at Exh.U-49. The first party by

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2219

filing pursis at Exh.C-39 declined to lead any evidence on remaining issues. I have gone through the record and

proceeding and also gone through the order of appropriate Government dated 28/01/2008. Finally heard both the

learned Advocates and on the basis of record and proceeding issue No.01 and 05 discussed as under and recorded the

findings accordingly :

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Whether the action of Management Bank of Maharashtra,

Kolhapur in imposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement on Shri. Milind Yashwant Kamble vide order

dated 21/12/2004 is legal and justified ?

.. In the negative.

Whether the second party prove that, he is entitled for the

reliefs claimed ?

.. In the affirmative.

What relief and Award ?

.. As per final order.

REASONS

AS TO ISSUE NO.01 :-

13)

After going through the record and proceeding it is observed that, admittedly first party Bank is Banking

Industry and governed by Banking Regulation Act as well as provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are

applicable to it. Further admittedly second party was employed by first party Bank in the capacity of Peon on and

from 1983. By virtue of his designation and nature of his work he falls under the definition of ‘Workman’ defined

under Section-2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Bare perusal of proceeding and rival contentions of both the

parties suggest that, on dated 06/04/2004 the first party has issued charge-sheet to the second party alleging six

misconduct under Section-19(5) (j) of the tripartite settlement and these allegations are :

%& cWadsps fu;e o dk;Zi/nrh ;kaps mYya?ku dsY;kus cWadsP;k fgrlaca/kkr ck/kk vkY;kus

cWadsl xHkhj vkfFkZd uqdlku >kys vkgs- vkiys gs orZu f}i{k djkj 1966 P;k dye 19-5 ¼ts½ uqlkj

cWadsP;k dk;ns’khj gDdkl o fgrlaca/kkl ck/kk vk.k.kkjs vlY;keqGs vkiys orZu gs xaHkhj xSjorZ.kwd Bjrs-

%& ‘kk[ksoj vkysY;k fDyvjhax e/khy loZ psd laca/khr dkÅaVjoj tk.kkj ukghr ;k fo”k;h

[kk=hiwoZd dkGth ?ksowu vki.k cWadsP;k fgrkl ck/kk vk.k.kkjs orZu dsys vkgs- ;keqGs cWadsyk Qkj eksBk

rksVk lgu djkok ykxyk vkgs- lnj orZu gs f}i{k djkjkP;k dye 19-5 ¼ts½ uqlkj xaHkhj xSorZ.kwd

Bjrs-

%& vokjri.ks fcy ijpsl lqfo/kk ?ksowu fu;ekuqlkj R;krhy vVh u ikGY;kus f}i{k djkj

1966 dye 19-5 ¼ts½ vUo;s vkiys orZu cWadsP;k fgrlaca/kkl ck/kk vk.k.kkjs vlY;keqGs vkiys orZu gs

xaHkhj xSjorZ.kwd Bjrs-

%& fcy ijpsl lqfo/kspk v;ksX;i.ks okij d#u vki.k cWadsP;k fu;ekaps mYya?ku dsys vkgs-

R;keqGs cWadsph Qlo.kwd >kyh vkgs- vkiys gs d`R; f}i{k djkj dye 19-5 ¼ts½ uqlkj xaHkhj xSjorZ.kwd

Bjrs-

%& voktoh dtkZP;k jdek dk<.ks gs cWadsP;k fgrlaca/kkps o ukoykSfddkps n`f”Vus xSj

vlwu vkiyh gh d`rh f}i{k djkj 19-7 ¼vk;½ uqlkj xSjorZ.kwd vkgs-

%& vkiY;k cpr [kkR;krhy uksanh voktoh vlwu vkiY;k ixkjkP;k izek.kkr ukghr- lnj

uksan.kh ;k cWadsP;k fgrlaca/kkl ck/kk ;s.kkjs vlY;kus vkiys ;k lanHkkZrhy orZu f}i{k djkj dye 19-5

¼ts½ uqlkj xaHkhj xSjorZ.kwd vkgs-

In short, first party Bank has kept the charges of indiscipline, improperly availed bill purchase facility and

avail loan amount in disproportionate manner.

14) It is pertinent to note that, the first party Bank has produced certain documents pertaining to Departmental

Enquiry conducted against the second party workman at Exh.C-14. The document at Serial No.02 is the enquiry

proceeding dated 24/06/2004, 08/07/2004, 21/07/2004, 28/07/2004 and 30/07/2004. If perused said proceeding it

appears that, within one month Departmental Enquiry is completed. During the course of enquiry, no any oral

evidence was recorded and no opportunity has been provided to the second party workman for cross-examination.

Simply the Enquiry Officer by giving opportunity to produce the document concluded the enquiry. If perused

2220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

document at Serial No.05 it appears that, the Enquiry Officer has collected the documents pertaining to charges

levelled against second party. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer has provided opportunity to submit written argument of

both the parties. Accordingly, second party has submitted his written argument on dated 17/08/2004 and first party on

dated 30/08/2004. If perused written argument submitted by second party therein he has contended all the facts and

tried to show that, how he is innocent and how the charges are not proved. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer vide his report

dated 16/09/2004 held him guilty of the misconduct and copy of report and findings was given to the second party

vide letter dated 16/09/2004 and was directed to submit his comments if any within 10 days.

15) If the workman came before the Court or Tribunal stating that, the enquiry conducted against him was not

fair, proper and legal and avoiding to the principles of natural justice in that circumstances it is the burden on

employer to produce entire documents of enquiry. In present case the first party has not produced entire documents

pertaining to the enquiry and only produced enquiry proceeding and bunch of documents before the Enquiry Officer

along-with Exh.C-14. But, fact is remained that, the first party relying on report of Enquiry Officer imposed

punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 19/12/2004. As far as issue pertaining to the fairness of enquiry

and findings of Enquiry Officer is concerned; those issues already decided by my learned Predecessor vide order dated

09/08/2016. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 09/08/2016 the second party was approached to the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.7815/2018. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide its order dated

11/10/2022 disposed the writ petition with observations that, there is no justification for the petitioner to stall the final

adjudication of the dispute by the Tribunal by questioning its decision with regard to the Part-I Award at this stage.

The Hon’ble High Court has given liberty to the petitioner to challenge Part-I Award in appropriate proceedings after

the final adjudication of Reference (I.T.) No.02/2008.

16) The first party tried to show that, Shri. S. Y. Karande was involved in the fraud of Rs.54,42,000/- therefore

he was also charge-sheeted on dated 18/09/2003 and after conducting the Departmental Enquiry he was dismissed

vide order dated 30/08/2004. As far as fraud of Rs.54,42,000/- is concerned; it is totally different subject matter than

the charges levelled against the second party workman. However, first party tried to show that, second party was

concerned with the charges levelled against Shri. S. Y. Karande. If perused charge-sheet given to Shri. S. Y. Karande

and present workman it reveals that, both charges are altogether different and they are not relevant with present

workman. After perusal of enquiry papers produced by second party himself the Tribunal is of opinion that, the first

party has not caused any financial loss. Further the second party tried to explain the circumstances with the supporting

documents. However, first party without looking into documents and submission proceeded to impose the punishment

of compulsory retirement.

17) Again if perused charges levelled against the second party workman it will reveal that, second party was

charged for six misconducts. Out of six charges, charge No.01 and 02 about the indiscipline. For the cause of

indiscipline Bank has allegedly suffered financial loss. As far as these charges are concerned; according to the Bank

second party has taken proper precaution for not going the cheque for clearing. Further the second party has not

obtained the permission from first party Bank to avail the loan facility from I.C.I.C.I. Bank for an amount of

Rs.3,40,000/-. Further second party has withdrawn the amount on 13 occasions and deposited the amount of

Rs.1,93,000/- and transfer the amount of Rs.1,68,960/- on 17 occasions. The first party has not brought on record any

document showing that, the second party workman was required to obtain permission for taking the Housing Loan

from I.C.I.C.I. Bank. As far as clearing of cheque is concerned; it is the routine duty of second party in absence of

concerned person to sorting out the cheques and to hand over to the clearing cheque counter which he had done. As

far as withdrawal or deposit is concerned; it is the right of any Account Holder to deposit the amount through online

or cash. It appears that, in these charges I do not find any loss caused to the first party Bank.

18) As far as charges No.03 and 04 are concerned; it is in respect of Bill Purchase Facility. Admittedly, the bill

purchase facility was provided to the second party and he has availed said facility. In this charge also I do not find any

financial loss caused to the first party. As far as charge No.05 is concerned; it is in respect of loan availed by second

party which according to the Bank it is disproportionate. As far as this charge is concerned; it is admitted fact that, the

second party has availed loan facility from the I.C.I.C.I. Bank and from the Society. According to the Bank the

installment of loan amount is Rs.3,581/- + 2,689/- and after adjusting the installment of loan amount net pay of

Rs.2,620/-. If carefully perused said charge there is also not appears any financial loss caused to the Bank. Finally if

perused charge No.06 therein alleged that, the entry of his Saving Account are major. In short, in the charges levelled

against the second party workman clearly shows that, no any financial loss caused to the Bank. For a moment if it is

considered that, the second party has indulged into indiscipline by acting in such a manner. However, punishment

imposed on second party seems to be shockingly disproportionate. The past service record is also not considered by

first party Bank at the time of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. Further the first party Bank has not

provided any opportunity to improve his discipline imposing any other punishment includes stoppage of increment or

by reverting the second party.

19) The second party by filing evidence affidavit at Exh.U-49 deposed that, he is unemployed since his

compulsory retirement and he tried to get alternate employment, but he was not succeed. Hence, he has prayed that, he

may be reinstated with continuity of service and full back wages along-with consequential benefits. If perused his

cross-examination he admits that, during the period from 1999 to 2003 he was working in Tarabai Branch in the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2221

capacity of Bill Collector. Since his compulsory retirement he could not get alternate employment. He along-with his

wife and two childs are residing at Baba Jarag Nagar and his children are taking education. Further admits that, he is

having his own house and his wife is engaged in the business of stitch the garment. On and average Rs.10,000/- is

house expenditure and from the income of his wife all the expenses are maintaining. Further deposed that, he is

assisting to his wife for the working of stitch. However, he denied that, his two children are doing part time job and

taking education. Further admits that, at the time of compulsory retirement the Bank has given gratuity amount and

provident fund amount. Finally deposed that, the punishment imposed upon him is unjust and improper. Once the

second party workman has disclosed the fact of his employment status, it was the burden on first party to prove that,

second party was gainfully employed. But on the point of gainful employment the first party has not led any evidence

and not produced any document.

20) While concluding the findings of above issues this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that, the action of

Management of Bank of Maharashtra, Kolhapur imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on Shri. Milind

Yashwant Kamble vide order dated 21/12/2004 is not legal and justified. Thus, findings of this issue answered in the

'Negative'.

AS TO ISSUE NO.05 :-

21) Admittedly, it is proved that, the action of Management of Bank of Maharashtra in imposing the punishment

of compulsory retirement is illegal and unjustified, therefore, obviously the second party workman would be entitled

to the relief. If perused statement-of-claim he prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages

along-with consequential benefits. As a matter of fact second party has attained the age of retirement on dated

01/04/2020, therefore, reinstatement is become infructuous. As stated above the first party Bank without considering

his past service record and without considering the fact that, the Bank has not suffered from any financial loss,

imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. The punishment imposed by Bank appears to be shockingly

disproportionate. Hence, considering the merit of present dispute this Tribunal is inclined to state that, the powers

vested with the Tribunal under Section-11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall have to be exercised to meet the

justice. If the Tribunal has granted the back wages @ 50% considering continuity of service it may be proper in the

interest of justice. The second party workman has already availed the gratuity amount and provident fund. Hence, he

would be entitled for back wages @ 50% and continuity of service for the purposes of yearly increment and also for

the amount of gratuity and other consequential benefits excluding leave salary and bonus etc. Hence, the findings of

issue No.05 answered in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass following order.

AWARD

Reference (I.T.) No.02/2008 answered in the Affirmative.

It is held and declared that, the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on second party workman is

shockingly disproportionate and therefore said order dated 21/12/2004 is quash and set-aside.

It is also held and declared that, the second party workman would be entitled for the relief of 50% back

wages from the date of his compulsory retirement till the date of his superannuation considering continuity

of service.

The first party is hereby directed to pay 50% back wages to the second partyconsidering his increment

from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of superannuation.

The prayer of reinstatement does not survive because of second party workman already superannuated on

dated 01/04/2020.

The Award be sendto the appropriate Government for its publication.

Shri. S. D. SURYAWANSHI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1097.— औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj bykgkckn cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V vkS?kksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (16/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/09/2020-आई आर (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

2222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2023

S.O. 1097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.16/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Lucknow

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and their

workmen.

[No. L-12011/09/2020-IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 16/2020

Ref. No. L-12011/09/2020-IR(B-II) dated 11.03.2020

BETWEEN

Sh. Ashutosh Kumar Singh,

Secretary Allahabad Bank Staff Association

UP C/o Allahabad Bank,

Branch Mohaddipur Gorakhpur-273008

AND

1. The Field General Manager

Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office

22-P, Purshottam Das Tandon Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad.

2. The Deputy General Manager

Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office

Mohaddipur, Kasia Road, Post- Kunraghat, Gorakhpur -273008

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/09/2020-IR(B-II) dated 11.03.2020 the present industrial dispute has been referred for

adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2A)

of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in not making payment of overtime

wages to the employees of Gorakhpur zone (as per list enclosed) who had worked during the

period from 09.11.2016 at the time of demonetization is legal, fair and just. If not, to what relief

the concerned employees are entitled to?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 16/2020 has been registered on

01.07.2020.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workmen's union

has not filed any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, workmen's union or its authorized representative has not turned up

before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim, till date.

Findings & Conclusion:

Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the

claimant/workmen’s union in order to establish its claim as per the reference dated 11.03.2022.

So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must fail.

Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is imperative

for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which the order is

challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or to file

written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government cannot be answered in

favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2223

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as

under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.,

V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49)

FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of any evidence led

by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman. In

such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. The obligation to lead

evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be,

who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P.

P.A.C.C.S.C. Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has

been held as under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders of the

respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first which he failed.

A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or documentary was led

by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be dismissed.”

As the workmen’s union has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case

is liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1098.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj ,u bZ jsyos ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (83/2020) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-41011/18/2020-आई आर (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 26th June, 2023

S.O. 1098.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 83/2020) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of N. E. Railway and their

workmen.

[No. L-41011/18/2020-IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 83/2020

Ref. No. L-41011/18/2020– IR(B-I) dated 19.11.2020

BETWEEN

The Zonal Working president, Rail Sewak Sangh, N.E. Railway

C/o Shri D.P. Awasthi, 49. Tilak Nagar, Lucknow-226004

AND

1. The Sr. Divisional Personal Officer, N.E. Railway,

DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow -226006

2. The Sr. Divisional Operating Manager, N.E. Railway,

DRM Office, Ashok Marg, Lucknow- 226006

2224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By order No. L-41011/18/2020– IR(B-I) dated 19.11.2020 the present industrial dispute has been referred for

adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A)

of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following schedule:

“1. Whether the claim of the workman Shri Ramanand regarding improper fixation of pay,

increments and pension by the management of N.E. Railway is justified in eye of law or not?

2. If yes, as so to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 83/2020 has been registered on 22.12.2020.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workman has not

filed any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, neither workman nor its authorized representative has turned up

before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim.

Findings & Conclusion:

Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order

to establish his claim as per the reference dated 19.11.2020.

So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj Industries v.

Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must

fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is

imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which

the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to

appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government

cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co.

Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors.

1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of

any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court

against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at

all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making

the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as

under:

“The submissiosn is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the

shoulders of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead

evidence first which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence

either oral or documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to

be dismissed.”

As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable

to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2225

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1099.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14 ) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj bykgkckn cSad ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; लखनऊ ds iapkV (83/2021) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12011/24/2021-आई आर (ch-II)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2023

S.O. 1099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.83/2021) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and their

workmen

[No. L-12011/24/2021-IR(B-II)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL –CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present: Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 83/2021

Ref. No. L-12011/24/2021 – IR(B-II) dated 02.08.2021

BETWEEN

The Secretary, Allahabad Bank Staff Association U.P.

C/o Allahabad Bank, Mohaddipur Branch, Gorakhpur-273008

AND

The Zonal Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office

Kasya Road, Mohaddipur PO Kuraghat, Gorakhpur - 273008

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/24/2021 – IR(B-II) dated 02.08.2021 the present industrial dispute has been referred

for adjudication to this Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) by the Central Government, with following

schedule:

“Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in transferring workmen Shri

B.K. Arya & Mohd. Jamil while they were on General Election, 2014(Lok Sabha) duty to

perform as Election Officer without obtaining prior approval from the Election Commission

and holding of salary for four months from April, 2014 to July, 2014 is legal and justified? If

not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?"

Accordingly, an industrial dispute No. 83/2021 has been registered on 17.08.2021.

From the perusal of record, the position which emerge out is that the till date the claimant/workman has not

filed any statement of claim.

Moreover, as a matter of fact and record, neither workman nor its authorized representative has turned up

before this Tribunal nor has filed any statement of claim.

Findings & Conclusion:

Taking into consideration the fact that till date no statement of claim has been filed by the claimant in order

to establish his claim as per the reference dated 02.08.2021.

So in view of the said facts, as well as the law laid by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of V. K. Raj

Industries v. Labour Court (I) and others 1981 (29) FLR 194 as under:

“It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced the party invoking jurisdiction of the Court must

fail. Whenever a workman raises a dispute challenging the validity of the termination of service if is

2226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

imperative for him to file written statement before the Industrial Court setting out grounds on which

the order is challenged and he must also produce evidence to prove his case. If the workman fails to

appear or to file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the State Government

cannot be answered in favour of the workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.”

In the case of M/s Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union, Ghaziabad through its Secretary v. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad and others 2008 (118) FLR 1164 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held as under:

“The law has been settled by the Apex Court in case of Shanker Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co.

Ltd., V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court and Ors., Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors.

1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR that in the absence of

any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the court

against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at

all. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making

the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led.”

And by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C.

Services v. Secretary-cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519; wherein it has been held as

under:

“The submission is that even if the petitioner failed to lead the evidence, burden was on the shoulders

of the respondent to prove the termination order as illegal. He was required to lead evidence first

which he failed. A perusal of the impugned award also does not show that any evidence either oral or

documentary was led by the respondent. In the case of no evidence, the reference has to be

dismissed.”

As the workman has not filed any statement of claim/oral/documentary evidence, so the present case is liable

to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is dismissed and; and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Award as above.

Justice ANIL KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1100.—औद्योवगक वििाद अविवनयम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की िारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय

सरकार एम््लाइज स्टेट इन्द्सुरेंस कॉपोरेशन, हॉवस्पटल के प्रबंितंत्र के संबद्ध वनयोजकों और मज़दूर सभा के बीच अनुबंि में

वनर्दाष्ट केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योवगक अविकरण एिं श्रम न्द्यायालय-2, नई ददल्ली के पंचाट (ठरफरेन्द्स नं. -05/2016) को

जैसा दक अनुलग्नक में ददखाया गया है, को प्रकावशत करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को सॉफ्ट कॉपी के साथ 27.06.2023

को प्राप्त हुआ था l

[सं. जेड-16025/04/2023-आई आर (एम) -42]

डी. के. जिमांिु, अवर सजचव

New Delhi, the 27th June, 2023

S.O. 1100.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 05/2016) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court-2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

Employees State Insurance Corporation Hospital and Mazdoor Sabha which was received along with soft copy of the

award by the Central Government on 27.06.2023.

[No. Z-16025/04/2023-IR(M)-42]

D. K. HIMANSHU, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, NEW DELHI.

Present: Smt. PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court-II, New Delhi.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 05/2016

Date of Passing Award- 16^th May 2023

Between:

The General Secretary,

Mazdoor Sabha, Opp. Tulsi Zarda,

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2227

Sector-5, Harola, Noida,

G.B Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

….Workman

Versus

The Director General,

ESIC Hospital,

Sector 24, Noida,

G.B. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh

…Management

Appearances:-

Shri Bharat Saini, Ld. A/R for the Claimant.

Shri Abhik Mishra, Ld. A/R for the Management.

AWARD

The Government of India in Ministry of Labour & Employment has referred the present dispute existing

between employer i.e. the management of (i) The Director General, ESIC Hospital, its workman/claimant herein, under

clause (d) of sub section (1)and sub section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 vide letter

No. L-15011/7/2015-(IR(M)dated 07/01/2016 to this tribunal for adjudication to the following effect.

“Whether the given workmen as per the list attached are justified in demanding reinstatement

for their contract period with the ESI Hospital, Noida? If so, what remedy can be given at this

late stage?”

As stated in the claim petition, the claimants (as per the list attached) with the reference received from the

appropriate Govt. were working in the ESIC Hospital Noida as paramedical staff of different categories. Their date of

appointment was different and the pay scale granted were also different. Since the date of appointment they were

working continuously in the establishment of the Mgt Hospital. Their appointments were made by the mgt of the ESIC

Hospital sector 24 Noida after proper interview and verification of the documents relating to their educational

qualification. All these claimants were working under the complete supervision and control of the MGT Hospital

through its officers. Every day, the mgt was taking the signature of the claimants to record their attendance on plain

papers but not on proper attendance register. At the time of payment of the remuneration, the mgt was also obtaining

the signature of the claimants on some papers affixed with revenue stamp as acknowledgment of receipt. But the mgt

was adopting anti-workman policy by not issuing appointment letter, attendance card, holiday card, Identity card and

salary slip. Not only that the mgt was also paying less than the minimum wage as notified by the Govt. On account of

this, the workmen were often raising their legitimate demands. Not only that the mgt was also not paying the wage

regularly and the same was often paid 15 to 20 days after the commencement of the following calendar month. All the

rightful demand raised by the claimants were being ignored by the mgt. In the month of March and April 2015, no

wage was paid to the claimants, though verbal assurance was given for early payment. When the claimants did not get

the said outstanding wage till June 2015, they made a complain in the office of the labour commissioner through their

union. This caused annoyance in the mind of the mgt and suddenly the services of all the claimants were illegally

terminated with effect from 29.07.2015. At the time of termination no notice of termination, notice pay or termination

compensation were paid to the claimants. The provisions of the ID Act were visibly violated. For the complaint

lodged by the claimant, notice was issued to the mgt by the labour commissioner. The mgt appeared there and assured

that the outstanding wage shall be paid soon. Thereafter the mgt called the workmen to his office and paid the unpaid

wage from the month of March 2015 to 28.07.2015. This payment was not made directly by the mgt but through their

agency named M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. The workmen had no knowledge about the relationship of that agency

with the mgt nor ever they had worked under the said agency. Being jobless for the illegal retrenchment, they again

raised a dispute before the labour commissioner and the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. In the

claim petition the claimants have stated that a direction be given to the mgt i.e. ESIC Hospital, to reinstate them in

service with full back wages and grant them continuity of service. Though the reference was received with the list of

71 retrenched employees, 27 employees filed the claim statement whose names have been mentioned in annexure A

filed along with the claim statement.

The MGT, i.e. the Director ESIC Hospital, sector 24 Noida being noticed appeared and filed written

statement denying the employer employee relationship between the said MGT and the claimant. It has been stated that

the claimants of this proceeding had never worked with the mgt as its employees. The mgt had published open tender

for supply of nursing and paramedical staff. After proper scrutiny, the tender was awarded to an independent agency

namely M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. Delhi. The said agency M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. had supplied the

required number of paramedicos. These claimants were working in the Hospital of the ESIC as the employees

M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. mgt and not as the employees of ESIC. Hence, the claim advanced by them against the

Mgt ESIC is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the contract between the mgt of ESIC and M/s Vishaka

Facilities (P) Ltd. mgt was terminated on 29.07.2015 with immediate effect, due It’s unprofessional conduct. Before

2228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

termination of the contract, show cause notices were served on the said M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. for not

supplying proper number of men power to the Hospital. These claimants were getting salaries directly from

M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. and the agency was not giving them salary in time. After receipt of the show case

notice, though M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. promised to pay the salary in time, failed to fulfill the promises. On

25.07.2015 M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. submitted a letter to the director of ESIC hospital stating that the agency

cannot supply the menpower to the hospital as agreed and requested to remit the withheld amount against the

Garnishee order of Recovery Officer RO Delhi. On receipt of this letter the contract of M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd.

stood terminated and a fresh contract was awarded to M/S Vayudoot Security Services Pvt. Ltd. for providing nursing

and paramedical staff. Hence, the claim of the claimants is liable to be dismissed.

The claimants filed rejoinder stating therein that they had never worked M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. they

are not aware of any relationship between M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. and the Director of ESIC. They being

employed to work under the direct supervision and control of the MGT of ESIC were the employees of ESIC and

entitled to the relief sought for in this claim petition.

On these rival pleading the following issues are framed for adjudication.

Issues

Whether the workmen mentioned in the attached list are justified in demanding reinstatement for their contract

period with the ESI Hospital, Noida? If so, its effect?

Whether there exist relationship of employer and employee between E.S.I Hospital, Noida, and workmen? If so,

its effect?

Whether there is non-rejoinder of M/s Vishaka Facilities management Pvt. Ltd. 30/42 Street No.8, Main Road,

Vishaka Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi 110092 as respondent/management in the claim by workmen? if so its effect?

Whether contract/tender awarded M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. and the management No. 1 ESI, Hospital

Noida has been terminated on 29.07.2015 with immediate effect due to its conduct, behavior and non-

compliance? If so, its effect?

To that relief the workmen is entitled to?

Out of 27 claimants 19 claimants testified as witnesses by filing their separate affidavits and other claimants

adopted the evidence adduced by them. But none of the witnesses were cross examined by the mgt in spite of proper

and adequate opportunity granted. The mgt was then called upon to adduce evidence and for the said purpose two

adjournments were allowed offer which right to adduce evidence was closed. On 21.02.2023 the A/R for the mgt

appeared and made an oral submission for recall of the order dated 19.01.2023 by which the right of the mgt to adduce

evidence was closed. The Ld. A/R took the stand that he has been newly appointed and the case has suffered for the

negligence of the previous counsel. But the stand taken by him was not found convincing since the claimants were

found litigating demanding reinstatement since the year 2015. For the negligence of the mgt and intervention of covid

lockdown their suffering was worst. The matter was then adjourned for argument. Argument was heard being

advanced by the A/R for both the parties. Be it stated that that during the pendency of the proceeding the claimants

had filed an application invoking the provisions of section 11(3) of the ID Act praying a direction to the mgt for

production of the documents from the custody of the mgt. They had asked for production of the details relating to the

vacancy position of staff nurses, pharmacists, O.T Assistant, and to technician working with the mgt since 2014 and

continuing, the copies of the nursing note of 2014 to 2015, copies of the record book, attendance register, admission

and discharge register from the custody of the mgt. After hearing objection raised by the mgt this Tribunal by order

dated 24.05.2019 passed the order was passed allowing the petition and directing the mgt to produce the documents.

The matter suffered several adjournments for production of the document from the custody of the mgt. Subsequently,

the mgt apprised that the documents are voluminous in nature and cannot be produced. Thereby the mgt admitted

possession of the documents at their end. This Tribunal by order dated 12.09.2019 gave liberty to the claimants to

adduce secondary evidence in respect of the said documents.

Finding

Issue No. 2, 3 & 4

For the objection taken by the mgt challenging the employer employee relationship between it and the

claimants these are the most important issues to be decided. The workmen have filed affidavit stating that they were

appointed after proper interview and verification of the certificate by the officers of the mgt of ESIC Hospital. Their

specific stand is that the appointment was made after completing all administrative formalities, but no letter of

appointment was given. That was the main cause of dissatisfaction and grievance of the claimants. The witnesses have

further stated that the introduction of the Agency named M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. while filing w.s is only

intended to camouflage their legal rights. The mgt was making them to work under their direct supervision and

control. This oral statement of the workmen has remained uncontroverted, since the mgt in this proceeding failed to

cross examine the witness and adduce any evidence contrary to the stand taken by the claimants. Though the employer

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2229

employee relationship has been denied in the written statement, the same will not outweigh the oral statement of the

workmen in absence of proof to that effect by the mgt. In this proceeding claimants had asked for a direction to the

Mgt for production of documents from it’s custody which could have thrown light on the employer employee

relationship. As stated in the preceding paragraph, the mgt though admitted possession of the documents like the

attendance register vacancy position duty seat etc, later on, denied to produce on the plea that the documents being

voluminous cannot be produced. The law is well settled that the party is possession of documents which could have

thrown light on the point of controversy is bound to produce the same. If the documents are not produced, adverse

inference is to be drawn. In this case the mgt is guilty of suppressing the documents which could have thrown light on

the disputed employer employee relationship.

The statement of the claimants is supported by few pages of the attendance register in respect of the nursing

staff and pharmacists. The witnesses examined by the claimants have also filed photo copies of their Bank statement

which clearly show that arrear pays were being paid by the mgt ESIC. In absence of any rebuttal evidence, the oral

and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants clearly proves that during the relevant period the claimant were

working under the mgt ESIC who was recording their attendance and paying their wage. The fact that there was an

intermediary named M/s Vishaka Facilities (P) Ltd. between the mgt and the claimants is a misnomer since no

evidence at all has been adduced by the mgt in this regard.

In the case of Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Worker Union reported in

(200107SCC page 1, the Hon’ble Apex Court have also prescribed for the effective control test to ascertain about the

relationship of the workman with the management or the contractor. Not only that in the case of Chintaman Rao vs.

State of M.P AIR1958, 388 the Apex Court ruled that the concept of employment involves 3 ingredients (i) Employer

(ii) Employee (iii) Contract of Employment. The employer is one who employees or engages the service of other

person. The employee is one who works for another for hire. The employment is the contract of service between the

employer and employee, where under the employees agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and

supervision. In the case of Workmen of Food Corporation of India vs Food Corporation of India AIR 1985 (SC)

670 the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced that the contract of employment always discloses a relationship of command

and obedience between them. Where a contractor employs a workman to do the work which he contracted with a third

person to accomplish, the workman of the contractor would not become more than the workman of the third person.

Hence in this case there being no evidence about the contractor the statement in the written statement denying the

employer employee relationship cannot be accepted.

In this case the claimants have all along maintained that they were working under the supervision and control

of the mgt of ESIC. This statement alone is sufficient to negative the statement made by the mgt in the w.s. Hence it is

concluded that the claimants have successfully proved their relationship as the employees of the mgt. These issues are

accordingly answered in favour of the claimants.

Issue No. 1 & 5

It is a decided principal of law that the employer and employee relationship is a question of fact and the

burden lies on him who asserts existence of the same. While answering the previous issues it has been held that the

workmen have successfully established their relationship as employees of the employer ESIC Hospital. It is now to be

seen if the termination of the workmen was made following the procedure of law or illegal for non compliance of the

same. Reference can be made to section 25-F of the ID Act 1947 which precisely speaks that no workmen employed

in any Industry, who has been in continuous service for not less than 1 year under an employer, shall be retrenched

until the workman has been given one month notice in writing, or has been paid retrenchment compensation. In this

case in the written statement the management has taken a plea that no such notice was served since the workmen were

not the employees of management. Thereby management has admitted non compliance of the provision of section 25-

F. In the preceding paragraph it has already been held that the contract of the management with M/s Vishaka Facilities

(P) Ltd. was sham and in fact the workmen were the employee of the management. In that case, the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F was required to be complied before the termination. The non compliance of the same has

made the termination of the workmen in the hands of management illegal. Thus, the moot question which remains to

be replied is what would be the relief that can be granted to the workmen.

Way back in the year 1980 the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma and

Others vs. CGIT Delhi had observed that

“Plain commonsense dictates that the removal order terminating the service of the workman must ordinarily

lead to the reinstatement in the service of the workman. It is as if the order was never been made and so it

must ordinarily lead to back wages. But there may be exceptional circumstance which makes it impossible

for the employer to direct reinstatement with full back wages.”

In such cases the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the appropriate order would be for payment of compensation

in lieu of reinstatement. But in the case of G.M ONGC Silchar vs. ONGC Contractual Worker Union reported in

2008 LLR 801 the Hon’ble Apex Court after giving due consideration to several observations in different

2230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

pronouncement which suggest that a workman who was put in 240 days or a contractual worker is not entitled

automatically to regularization came to hold that in appropriate cases regularization can be ordered.

Here is a case were the workmen have prayed for the relief simplicitor for reinstatement to service by the

management which shows their anxiety for reemployment. The basic issue in the present case is the status of the

workmen and whether they were the employees of ESIC. As seen from the evidence these workmen were appointed

on different dates of 2014. Their services were terminated on 29.07.2015. There is absolutely no evidence if there are

still vacancies in the posts they were working before their termination. Though they have worked for more than 240

days continuously, the period of employment was not very long. In such a situation it cannot be concluded that the

claimants are entitled to reinstatement.

Thus considering the evidence, the length of service rendered by the claimants and the periods spent between

the date of termination and this award it is felt justified to direct the mgt to suitably compensate the claimant instead

of reinstating them into service. These two issues are accordingly answered. Hence ordered.

ORDER

The claim petition be and the same is allowed on contest. It is held that the termination of the workmen by

the mgt is illegal. But for unclear evidence about the existence of vacancies and time gap between the termination and

passing this award and for the brief tenure of service of the claimants, it is directed that the mgt for such illegal

termination shall pay compensation to each of the claimants. Each of the claimants shall be paid one month last drawn

salary as the notice pay, and 15 days salary for each completed year of service toward retrenchment compensation and

an amount of Rs. 60,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses by the mgt. This amount shall be paid to the

individual workmen within two months from the date of the publication of the award without interest falling which the

amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of termination and till the final payment is made. The list of

the claimants is attached herewith as annexure-A:-

List of the workmen

S.No.

Name

Father/Husband Name

Post

Salary

Date of Appointment

Deepshika

Sh. Anil Kumar

Pharmacist

16,560

10.03.2014

Parveen

Sh. Mahinder Sharma

Pharmacist

16,560

10.03.2014

Jai Shankar patel

Sh. Jagdish Chander

Pharmacist

16,560

15.03.2014

Munis Kumar

Sh. Nem Singh

Pharmacist

16,560

15.03.2014

Nand Kishore

Sh. Chand

Pharmacist

16,028

22.03.2014

Manoj

Sh. Amed Singh

Pharmacist

16,560

20.05.2014

Ravinder

Sh. Shiv Kumar

O.T Asstt.

14,900

04.04.2014

Ramveer

SH. R.M Tomar

O.T Asstt.

14,900

05.04.2014

Rajpal Kaur

Sh.Angrej

Staff Nurse

28,000

15.04.2014

Pooja Kakkar

Sh. Ravi Kakkar

Staff Nurse

28,000

15.04.2014

Ajay

Sh. Johar Singh

Staff Nurse

28,000

12.04.2014

Naveen Sharma

Sh. Murari Lal

Staff Nurse

28,000

03.04.2014

Pallavi

Sh. C.L Bhatia

Staff Nurse

28,000

02.06.2014

Pooja

Sh. Kishan Lal

Staff Nurse

28,000

21.04.2014

Gurvinder kaur

Sh. Hoshiar Singh

Staff Nurse

28,000

05.04.2014

Remika

Sh. W/o Vikas

Staff Nurse

28,000

21.06.2014

Devender Kumar

Sh. Suresh Kumar

Staff Nurse

28,000

05.04.2014

Goldy

Sh. Balraj Dhama

N.O.

14,000

11.05.2014

Sangeeta

Sh. Vishnu Kumar

N.O.

14,000

10.06.2014

Parvesh Devi

Sh. Dinesh

N.O.

14,000

12.06.2014

Rinka

Sh. Aryan Kumar Tiwari

N.O.

14,000

15.04.2014

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2231

Gyanendra

Sh. Jabar Singh

N.O.

14,000

21.04.2014

Divanshu

Sh. Fateh Singh

N.O.

14,000

21.05.2014

Ankit

Sh. Ashok Kumar

N.O.

14,000

14.04.2014

Parminder

Sh. Devender Kumar

N.O.

14,000

08.04.2014

Kuldeep

Sh. Ramesh Chander

N.O.

14,000

10.04.2014

Monika

Sh. Shushil

Staff Nurse

28,000

21.06.2014

Send a copy of this award to the appropriate government for notification as required under section 17 of the

ID act 1947.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

PRANITA MOHANTY, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1101.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj भारतीय स्ट्टेट बैंक ds izca/kr=] lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V औद्योजगक

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; िैिराबाि ds iapkV (44/2004) izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12025/01/2023- -आई आर (ch-I) -64]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2023

S.O. 1101.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 44/2004) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and

their workmen.

[No. L-12025/01/2023- IR(B-I)-64]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present: - Sri IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

Dated the 1^st day of June, 2023

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 44/2004

Between:

Sri Sayyad Nazeer Ahammad,

R/o Syed Hussain,

R/o H.No. 7-94,

Padamatipalem,

Podili -523240

Prakasam District.

… Petitioner

And

The Asst. General Manager,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt.)

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Hyderabad-500095.

…..Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Macharla Rangaiah, Advocate

For the Respondent:

M/s. A. Phani Bhushan & B. Ramulu, Advocates

2232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Sri Sayyad Nazeer Ahammad who worked as Messenger (who will be referred to as the workman) has filed

this petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the Respondents State Bank of India

seeking for reinstatement into service as Messenger/Sweeper duly granting all the consequential benefits such as

continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other reliefs as this court may deems

fit.

2. Earlier this industrial dispute was answered by this Tribunal by a common award dated 17.5.2005, along with other

batch cases, and the claim of the workman was dismissed. Workman challenged said award before the Hon’ble High

Court vide WP No. 6470/2006 & batch wherein Hon’ble High Court of A.P., vide decision dated 23.6.2014 set aside

the common award dated 17.5.2005 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Hyderabad

and directed the Respondent bank to reengage the workmen in the positions which they had been occupying prior to

termination. Being aggrieved by the said order in WP No. 6470/2006 & batch, Respondent bank preferred appeal

WA Nos.1268/2014 and batch cases wherein Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court held:-

“(1) affirming the impugned common order of the learned single Judge to the “extent it sets aside the

common award dated 17.5.2005 of the Industrial Tribunal;

(2)

The further findings and directions issued through the impugned common order are vacated;

(3)

all the matters shall be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to dispose of them within an

outer limit of five(5) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and,

(4)

the parties to make appearance before the Tribunal on the given date.”

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WA No. 1268/2014 and other batch, held that, “ Hearing the

learned senior counsel for the SBI and the Learned Senior Counsel for the contesting unofficial respondents, we see

that while the learned single Judge was justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal. This we say for reasons

more than one. Firstly, in such matters, claims have to be decided on individual basis, as different persons have

different claims as to the length of officiation or discharge of duties and functions; quality of engagement, drawings,

accounting of the post for each one of them, who have worked etc. All these issues will not be the same in all the

cases. Therefore, each case ought to have been directed to be decided by the Tribunal afresh on individual basis. The

second and the most important aspect is the learned single Judge has in one go ordered re-employment of all the

workmen. This is not a relief that could have been granted without answering the individual issues; each issue

relating to each case could not have been decided by the writ Court within the format of its adjudication procedures

and scope. The adjudicating body, which has to do that activity, is the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the

view that while we would sustain the order of the learned singe Judge insofar as it interfered and sets aside the

award of the Tribunal, the further findings and directions, issued through the impugned order have to go and the

individual cases HCJ&ARR,J WA No. 1268 of 2014 & Batch 6 have to be sent back for consideration of the Tribunal.

Such further procedure before the Tribunal will have to be carried forward with the materials already on record and

also by affording an opportunity to the persons, who have claims as well as the management to place their rival

contentions and further material before the Tribunal//The learned counsel appearing for the workmen are justified in

pointing out that enormous delay has already happened and further action by the Tribunal in this line may be

expedited.”

Therefore, in compliance of order dated 20.3.2019 of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad passed in WA

No. 1268/2014, this Industrial Tribunal conducted hearing proceeding in this reference on individual basis and both

parties have been provided of ample hearing opportunity during the proceeding.

The factual matrix of the present industrial dispute is as follows:

The workman filed his claim statement with the averments in brief as follows:

The workman Sri Sayyad Nazeer Ahammad, belongs to forward caste, was appointed as Messenger in July 1991 in

the respondents organization State Bank of India, Prakasam District. He worked upto 31.3.97 and he was stopped

from working as per the orders of the respondents panels were pre pared and he was called for interview in 1992 and

was included in the panel 1994. Subsequently from July 1991 to March 1997 he worked totally for 315 days.

Meanwhile in contempt petition C.C.27/97 the High Court has ordered for mutual discussions and come to an

understanding with the representatives of temporary and casual workers on 1988 panel and 90-92 panel. While so,

this applicant was not considered where as his juniors were considered. Again in June 1999-in W.P. 12258/99 stay

orders were obtained and recruitment did not take place. The applicant has crossed his age for recruitment and cannot

seek alternate employment. He worked from 1975 to 1991 he was denied employment by a blank order of the

Regional Manager Tirupati. Those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate any calendar month after

1-7-1995 or 75 days in aggregate in a continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1.7.1975 were called for

interviews by virtue of a settlement dt.17-11-1987. In fact till such time, the petitioner was asked to work on

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2233

temporary basis as messenger/attender/sweeper. The banking authorities again entered into fresh settlement of 9.1.91

by which the respondent authorities again issued a notification and completed similar procedure and the authorities

ignored fresh proceedings without considering the writ of this applicant. While the above 2 settlements were pending

another settlement dt. 30.7.1996 was made without considering the name of the candidate who are called for

Interviews and empanel in 1991 without absorbing the petitioner who was empanel in 1988 and 1989. The

respondents have again prepared panels run concurrently. They have issued orders directing the Branch Manager not

to engage the temporary employees with effect from 1.7.1997. Subsequently a batch of Writ petitions were filed, in

which workman was one of the petitioners and the single judge allowed the writ petition by an order dt.1.1.1998

wherein the respondents State Bank of India were directed to absorb the petitioner within 6 months before going for

fresh recruitment. Aggrieved of this the respondent have filed appeals to the Division Bench in the writ appeal

No.86/98 and batch. The Hon'ble Division Bench directed the petitioner to exhaust the remedy provided in the

Industrial Disputes Act and set aside the judgement of the Learned Single Judge, Thereupon SLP was filed in the

Supreme Court which was dismissed at the admission stage, agreed the Division Bench orders. Therefore, the

necessity arose for filing this Application under Section 2(A) (2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner is

quite senior compared to many of the people selected in subsequent list and they are working even now. Number of

branches vacancies arose but the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner was working at the time of instead of

regularizing the individuals in the existing panel, called fresh panel is a mischievous play by the respondents. No

termination letter was issued to the petitioner and he was abruptly stopped without assigning any reasons. They have

not even followed the procedure laid down under ID. Act. Sec.25 (F) of I.D.Act. When they have absorbed many

juniors from the subsequent panel, the respondents have not exhausted the procedure laid down under Sec.25 (G) and

25 HH. The State Bank of India is an establishment within the meaning of chapter V'B'. They should have obtained

prior permission from the competent authority to retrench the Workman instantly. The abrupt termination is an unfair

labour practice, In view of the direction granted by High Court single Judge on the batch of writ petitions a panel was

pre pared in which the petitioner's name is also there and which is valid upto December, 1991 and which was made

after 31.3.97. They were under the impression and bonafide were living on the basis of reasonable expectation, as

such the petitioner is entitled for continuance in service. The action of authorities in terminating of services would

also be contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Sundermany AIR 1976

Supreme Court iiii. The action of the respondents is a clear discrimination among the persons equally placed and

equally to be appointed and absorbed as laid down in AIR India Statutory Authority Vs. J.M.M. Industries Ltd.,

Ashok Kumar vs. Chairman, B.S.R.B. No other individual can be appointed either in temporary vacancy or

permanent vacancy except from among the empanelled candidates like the petitioner and this should continue till they

are absorbed. Admittedly the 1^st settlement dt.17.8.1989 was not implemented before the valid date. There were

subsequent agreements on 16.10.1988, 27.10.1988 followed by agreement on 26.4.94 which shows that the earlier

settlements were modified the intention to give chance to empanelled people was not followed by the respondents.

The proceedings issued by the respondents that the panel of temporary employees and daily wages/casual labour

maintained by zonal offices stand lapsed by 31.3.97 which is lacking proprietary legality not the purpose. There is no

specified authority who should declare as competent authority to decide about the validity or the life of the panel or to

put an end to it. In Jocob M.Tutuparamibi's case it was held that where by way of stop gap arrangements till regular

employee made and continued for more than 2 years and possessing requisite qualifications they are entitled to be

regularized. It is also submitted that ever since his illegal termination of service the Petitioner could not secure

alternative employment inspite of his best efforts. Therefore, it is prayed the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold

that the action of the respondent Management on termination/discharge of petitioner from service is illegal arbitrary

and unjust and consequently pass an award directing the respondent management to reinstate the petitioner into

service with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits and grant such other relief as the

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. The Respondents filed counter refuting the averments made by the Petitioner in the claim petition, and

contention of Respondent in brief runs as follows:

Respondent submitted that the claim petition itself is not tenable and contrary to the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The various allegations made in the claim statement are not correct and are hereby

denied. The Petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in his claim statement. The management

craves the leave of this Hon’ble Tribunal to submit the entire conspectus of the material facts in brief for proper

appreciation of the dispute raised by the Petitioner. It is submitted that to tide over the severe subordinate staff

constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies etc., and also owing to the restrictions imposed by the

Government of India/Reserve bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage subordinate staff

i.e., Messengers, Sweepers, Sweeper-cum-Waterboys etc., depending upon the availability of work on a purely

temporary basis for smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State

Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising

about 98% of the work force on its’ members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than

240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any kind of protection

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and requested the bank to give a chance for being considered for absorption

and permanent appointment to such of the temporary employees. The discussions were held between the federation

2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and bank and the issues were discussed in all its aspects and in all its details and accordingly it was felt that it would

be just, fair and reasonable(having regard to various circumstances and in the interests of the concerned temporary

employees) that a settlement should be reached. Out of the several factors covered under the settlement those which

have bearing on the issues under consideration in the present application have been brought out in the following

paragraphs for better appreciation of the factual position and brevity.

On 17.11.1987, an agreement was signed between the Federation and the management Bank under Section

2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the ID Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1967.

As per settlement the temporary employees were categorized into three categories, detailed as under:

i) Category 'A' :

Those, who have completed 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months or less after 01.07.1975.

ii) Category 'B':

Those, who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar

months after 01. 07.1975.

iii) Category 'c':

Those, who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after

01.07.1975 or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar

months after 01. 07.1975.

In the 1^st settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized above would be given a chance for

being considered for permanent appointment in the Bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise

during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16^th July 1988, a further agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the

Bank where by it was agreed to substitute the period for consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987

to 1991 as contemplated under the 1^st settlement dated 17.11.1987 and the agreement was signed by the Federation

and the Management Bank under Section 2 (p) read with Section 18( 1) of Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 58

of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules. A copy of this settlement which hereinafter may be referred to as 2^nd

settlement of for brevity. On 27^th October 1988, a further agreement was arrived at between the Federation and the

Management Bank hereinafter referred to as 3^rd settlement for brevity agreeing to incorporate the following clause as

clause 1-A after clause 1 in the 1st settlement. All persons, who have been engaged in casual basis (as defined in

clause 11 (ii) hereunder) to work in leave/casual vacancies of Messengers, Farrashes, Cash Coolies, Water Boys,

Sweepers etc., for any of the periods mentioned in category ‘A’, 'B', 'C' in clause 1 will be given a chance for being

considered for permanent appointment in the Bank' s service against vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992.

Accordingly, causal/daily wagers were also to be considered for permanent absorption along with temporary

employees who were drawing scale wages.

Government of India vide its letter dated 16.8.90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard

to absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the

lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The Government of India

guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.

The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of

temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect to temporary employees

who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and

however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union.

In para 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or

more days after 1.1.82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines

envisaged for a settlement in respect of temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more

days, the Bank by way of further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than

90 days.

In terms of the settlement dated 17^th November, 1987 such of the temporary employees who had worked

with the bank during the period from 1^st July, 1975 to 31^st December, 1987 were to be given a chance for being

considered for permanent appointment in the bank service against the vacancies likely to arise. The name of the

suitable candidates were to be wait listed and there were three categories of temporary employees carved out -

Category A - those who completed 240 days, Category B those who completed 270 days and Category C - those who

completed 70 days. The panel of the wait listed candidates was to operate as valid upto 31^st December, 1991. In

terms of the partial modification vide second settlement dated 16^th July, 1988 the date of qualifying service was

extended upto 31^st July, 1988 instead of 31^st December, 1987. An advertisement was issued on 1^st August, 1988

pursuant to the aforesaid settlement calling for application from such temporary employees who were paid scale

wages (monthly wages). It may be stated that this was done region-wise as there were different vacancies to be filled

in different regions. It appears that the Union further sought to canvass the cause of even casual posts or daily wage

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2235

Workers and this resulted in a third settlement dated 27^th October, 1988. Thus, it was decided to consider all

candidates against vacancies likely to arise from the year 1988 to 1992 as apparently in some of the circulars the

number of vacancies was more than the wait listed temporary scale wage employees though the Chennai circle was an

exception to this where the wait listed temporary candidates were more than the available vacancies. The present

dispute relates to this Chennai circle.

The fourth settlement is said to have been arrived at on 9^th January, 1991 where the validity of the panel was

extended from 1991 to 1994 whereafter the validity of panel was to lapse on 31.12.1994 and the remaining candidates

were to have no claim for whatsoever. In pursuance of the third settlement an advertisement was issued by the bank

on 1^st May, 1991 calling for applications for causal/daily wagers for being given chance to be considered for

permanent appointment. This created a situation where the temporary employees felt threatened if a common list was

drawn up. There would naturally not have been any cause for concern were these causal daily wagers put at the end of

the list of the temporary employees. Be that as it may, a Writ Petition No. 7872 of 1991 came to be filed by the SBI

employees Union seeking a relief for operation of the wait list in pursuance of the advertisement dated 1^st August,

1988 and simultaneously not to operate any list which may be drawn up in pursuance of the advertisement of 1^st May,

1991. Interim stay was granted in respect of the second aspect which continued till 23^rd July, 1999 i.e., for a period of

more than eight years. The logical consequence of this ought to have been that no list could have been drawn of the

casual posts/daily wagers and the list of the temporary employees had to be operated during this period of time. The

writ petition was finally disposed of on 23^rd July, 1999 by which time the relief in the petition would have worked

out.

The 5^th settlement was arrived at on 30^th July, 1996 requiring the panel to be kept alive upto 31^st March,

1997 and this was be in respect of the vacancies which became available upto 31^st December, 1994.

10.

It is submitted that the vacancies as agreed upon were filled with the eligible candidates in the panels and

petitioner herein has not put in more number of days than those persons who have been absorbed. It is denied that the

petitioner has worked continuously for years as alleged by him. The petitioner who has put in an aggregate temporary

service of less than 240 days in a continuous 12 months period during 1.7.1975 to 31.7.1988 had no right to seek a

direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the

settlements entered into thereon. In fact, the case of the Petitioner has been considered under the settlements dated

17.11.1987, 16.07.1988, 29.10.1988, 09.01.1991 and 30.07.1996. Having got his/her case considered under the

provisions and terms of these settlements, all the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on

him/her. The management bank has not violated any of the provisions and terms of the said settlements. It is submitted

that the allegations made by the applicant are ill founded, misconceived and are untenable. It is contended that the

applicant and the other similarly placed ex-temporary employees do not have nor are they entitled to claim any

independent right except basing their claims, if any, under the settlements; for, they do not fall under the protected

category of employees as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, they are entitled to the rights and

obligations regulated under such settlements. It is further pertinent to state the very preparation and maintenance or

panels is in compliance with the terms agreed to under the settlements. As has been clarified in the earlier

paragraphs, settlements under enquiry being expressly time bound and the panels prepared in pursuance thereof

having lapsed and ceased to exist as at the end of the designated period viz. 31.3.1997, the remaining candidates on

the panels including the applicant have no right or claim of whatsoever nature, as against the bank, as was expressly

agreed to and undertaken under the settlements. It was never agreed to nor was it the internment under the settlement

to keep alive the panels till all the empanelled candidates are absorbed. Such a course is neither envisaged nor

feasible. If the petitioner did intend to accept the settlements he should have raised the objection before appearing

for interview and consequent empanelment. Having claimed the benefits accrued under the settlements and the

consequent empanelment etc., the applicant is debarred and estopped from questioning the validity of settlements. As

per the settlement dated 9.1.1991, it has been specifically agreed between the parties that the vacancies arising upto

December, 1994 will be filled from 1989 panel on the basis of seniority. Thereafter, the said panel stood lapsed and

the remaining candidates have no claim of whatsoever nature for being considered for permanent absorption in the

bank. According to the above settlements, the panels of daily wages enlisted under 1992 panel will be used for filling

vacancies which may arise upto the end of 1994. Thereafter, the said panel also shall stand lapsed and the remaining

candidates wait listed therein will have no claim of whatsoever nature for being considered for permanent absorption

in the Bank. It is submitted that the stipulated temporary service rendered during the period from 1.1.1975 to

31.7.1988 is only to be taken for permanent absorption and number of days worked subsequent to this period are not

counted as per the agreements since the panels were already lapsed on 31.3.97 and since the vacancies were already

filled up by absorbing temporary attendants and the daily wagers/casual employees respectively in the order of their

seniority in the empanelment engaging their services does not arise. It is submitted that the persons who do not have

the requisite number of days as per the agreements, they cannot be considered for permanent absorption. It is further

submitted that the bank has never promised that all candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement

itself it was made clear that candidates wil1 be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992.

11.

It is further submitted that basing on the terms of settlements arrived between the Federation and the

management Bank, the vacancies have been identified and the ex.temporary employees in the panels were absorbed

2236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

on the basis of seniority. The mere empanelment of the petitioners will not give any right for absorption in favour of

the petitioners. The further averment that keeping alive the panels after 31.3.1997 is contrary to the settlements

arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the management bank.

12.

It is submitted that in terms of the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, the State Bank of

India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation have entered into settlements and hence they have the force of

law and are binding on the parties. Besides, the fact remains that by virtue of their being on the panel, the

settlements have been duly acted upon by the applicants. Consequently, the present applicant is also bound by the

terms of such settlements, for, the very maintenance of panels is inconsequence to the terms agreed under such

settlements. As the terms of the settlement have been strictly adhered to by the Bank, the allegations made and the

relief sought under this claim application is wholly untenable, misconceived, devoid of merits. The settlements do

not admit of any ambiguity in that their language is clear.

13.

The present application is admittedly based on the settlements alone and not based on any independent right

to seek regularization and much less under any provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. The panels under the

settlements were expressly made time bound. It is submitted that this was an integral term of the settlement and

cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. In the circumstances, those temporary employees who

unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for

regularization either under the settlements or otherwise. The bank has complied with the settlements in letter and

spirit. The circulars and letters referred to in the claim statement were mere directives to ensure that the pernicious

practice of engaging temporary employees is discontinued. This was in fact a term of the settlements itself.

14.

It is submitted that some writs were filed by certain temporary employees who were also called for

interview and empanelled. In writ petition No.12964/94, the Hon’ble High Court went into the similar contentions in

details and the learned judge also referred to the settlements and subsequently held that the Petitioners therein were

not entitled for any relief and the only relief they can claim is enforcement of settlements, if there is any right flowing

from it or it has been violated. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is as follows:

"It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation which is the majority union and the bank management is binding on the petitioners also. It is not, at all

the case of the petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank’s management. If the

Petitioner had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim

that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the

Petitioner in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Petitioner to

claim any right which flows form the settlement between the union and the bank management. As already pointed

out that it is not the grievance of the Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the

Petitioner has been denied by the bank management. Therefore, I domestic enquiry not find any ground, let alone

substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Petitioner. Writ petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed. No costs.”

15.

Respondent contended that the settlements contemplate that the panels would cease to exist at the end of

designated period and also that there would be no further temporary recruitment of employees or recruitment as

casual workers. In no event did the settlements suggest that the temporary employees could be continued

indefinitely and the relief sought by the applicant in the instant case, if permitted, would result in making the practice

of temporary employment permanent through back door entry which would not only be contrary to the settlements

but also to the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and deprive the chances of rightful claimants who would if

necessary come through proper recruitment procedure. The settlements were made as one time measure to bring

about an end to the practice of such engagement. The rights of the applicant herein were crystallized by operation of

the settlements. As such, there is no question of any legitimate expectation or estoppel; for, neither of these can be

superior to nor improve upon contractual rights specially those arising out of an industrial settlement. Further, no

statement or representation was made by the Bank at any point of time that permanently appointed in the Bank in fact

in the advertisement issued pursuant to the first settlement in response to which applications were submitted by the

applicant and the panels were prepared, it was clearly enumerated that a chance for being considered for permanent

appointment shall be given to those temporary employees found suitable and shall be wait-listed and their

appointment shall be subjected to the vacancies and the wait list be valid till 1991.

16.

It is also submitted that the similarly placed ex-temporary employees in the panels filed writ petition

No.9206/97 and the batch before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The learned Single Judge, allowed the

writ petitions. Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge, the bank preferred writ appeal No.86/98 and the batch

against the said judgement. The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the writ appeals

filed by the bank setting aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter, the ex-temporary employees filed Special

Leave Petition No. 11886-11888 of 1998 before the Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also

dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, reference to the judgement of learned Single Judge in WP

No.9206/1997 is of no consequence as the same was already set aside. The observations made in the judgement

cannot be relied upon for any purpose, whatsoever and therefore the same be ignored. It is submitted that the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2237

Petitioner has not worked for 240 days in any preceding 12 calendar months period. Therefore, reference to Section

25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not relevant. The Petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by

him in his claim statement. He is put to strict proof of all the allegations made by him, in his claim statement as

regards his service and educational qualifications. The allegation that he was terminated from service is not correct.

As already submitted the vacancies were filled up, on regular basis in the order of their respective seniority and non-

engagement of the Petitioner does not amount to termination. No law provides that even though there is no work,

temporary employee should be continued in bank work , as the very engagement of the Petitioner was subject to

availability of work. The allegation that the bank had indulged in unfair labour practice is not correct. It is submitted

that the settlements are binding on the Petitioner and the said settlements have been fully implemented. There is no

violation of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. There is no termination at all and therefore, the

reference itself is unwarranted and the same is illegal. The issue is covered by various judgements of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Courts. There are absolutely no merits in the Industrial Dispute raised

by the Petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

17.

On the basis of pleadings and arguments advanced by both the parties following points emerge for

determination in the present matter:-

Whether the action of the respondent management in terminating the services of petitioner workman with

effect from 31^st March 1997 is in violation of provision of section 25F of industrial dispute act 1947 and the

same is liable to set aside?

II.

Whether the petitioner workman is entitled for reinstatement into the service of respondent management as

he alleges in his petition?

III.

Whether petitioner workman is entitled for regularization in terms of various settlements arrived at between

the Respondent bank and federation of employees?

IV.

To what relief if any petitioner is entitled?

Findings

18.

Point I & II:- The petitioner (hereinafter will be called workman) In support of his submissions made in the

claim petition, he has examined himself as WW1. In his examination in chief he has reiterated the averments made in

his claim statement and he has stated that he joined in the Respondent bank on 12.5.1986 in State Bank of India,

Pamuru branch, Prakasham District and subsequently he was appointed as messenger from July, 1991 onwards. He

also states that he has regularly worked for 1200 days and thereafter he was terminated from service w.e.f.

31.3.1997. He has also proved the copies of the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.W1, W2, W3, W4 and W5 which are

the certificates issued by the Respondent bank regarding number of working days.

19.

On the other hand, respondent contended that petitioner has not put in aggregate temporary service for 240

days in a continuous 12 months period as required under the provision of section 25F and 25B of industrial dispute

act. Therefore, he is not entitled for reinstatement for violation of provision of section 25F of ID Act.

20.

Before examining the plea taken by Petitioner in the light of evidence it would be apposite to mention the

relevant provisions on the aspect in the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as well decisions of the Apex Court laid down in

this context.

Section 25F provides:-

Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the workman has been given one month' s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period

of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days'

average payfor every completed year of continuous service] or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by

the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette].

Compensation to workmen in case of transfer of undertakings.

Section 25B defines the term continuous service which provides

Definition of continuous service.- For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service,

including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike

which is not illegal, or a lock- out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

2238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six

months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with

reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case;

21.

As regards the question of burden of proof to prove mandatory condition of 240 days of continuous service

in 12 months in a calendar year just preceding from the date of termination is concern, Hon’ble Apex court has laid

down principle in number of decisions as follows:

In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2004) Apex Court held:

"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year concerned. This

claim was denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had worked for 240 days in

the year preceding the date of his termination. He has filed an affidavit. It is statement which is in his favor and that

cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant

had worked for 240 days in a year These aspects were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3)

SCC 25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record in that regard was produced. Mere

non-production of the muster roll for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court held that the

workman had worked for 240 days as claimed."

In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004 (8) SCC 195), held "the burden was on the

workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged

retrenchment." In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246) the position was again reiterated in

paragraph 11 as follows: "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court having held so, in our

opinion, the Industrial Court and the High Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse

inference drawn erroneously ..”

In the case of Manager, RBI, Bangalore vs. S Mani (2005) SCC Page 100, the 3 Judges Bench of the

Apex Court held that "the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of

service."

In the case of Mohan Lal vs. Management, BEL 1981 SCC P. 225, Hon'ble Apex Court held, "Before a

workman can claim retrenchment, not being in consonance of Section 25 of the ID act. he has to show that he has

been in continuous service of not less than 1 year with the employer who had retrenched him from service."

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal vs Management BEL also laid down the principle that

how to count 240 days of service within one year and held: "Clause (2)(a) provides for a fiction to treat a

workman in continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact that he has not rendered uninterrupted service

for a period of one year but he has rendered period of 240 days during the period of 12 calendar service for months

counting backwards and just preceding the relevant date being the date of retrenchment. In other words, in order to

invoke the fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it is necessary to determine first the relevant date, ie the date of termination

of service which is complained of as retrenchment. After that date is ascertained. move backward to a period of 12

months just preceding the date of retrenchment and then ascertain whether within the period of 12 months, the

workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days. If these three facts are affirmatively answered in favor of the

workman pursuant to the deeming fiction enacted in clause (2)(a) it will have to be assumed that the workman is in

continuous service for a period of one year and he will satisfy the eligibility qualification enacted in Section 25-F"

In the case of Mohan Lal Vs. Management of BEL, Hon’ble Apex Court have held the principle that

how to calculate and determine the number of 240 days of continuous service of workman as required u/s 25F and

25B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” As per law laid down by the Apex Court, “continuous 240 days of service for

a period of one year should be counted backward and just preceding the relevant date being the date of

retrenchment.”

22.

In view of the rival contentions made by both the parties we proceed to examine whether the service of the

workman was terminated in contravention of the provision of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this re

regard WW1 has stated in the chief examination that he has worked for 1200 days before termination and it has also

submitted that as per certificate issued by the Respondent i.e., Ex.W3 and W4 he has worked for 115 days from

1.7.1991 to 7.2.1992 and again for 200 days from 15.2.1992 to 23.9.1992 and again he has worked form 9.7.2001 for

115 days. WW1 cross examined by the Respondent’s counsel and in his cross examination witness states that he

was not sponsored by employment exchange and did not under go regular process of selection before engagement as

temporary messenger in the branch. He did not work continuously and he used to work depending upon the

availability of the work in the branch. Further, WW1 states that it is true that he did not work for 240 days in any

year in his entire service in the bank in any branch. Witness also states that he worked with Respondent bank from

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2239

12.5.86 to 31.3.97 continuously but he could not complete 240 days of his service in a year but Branch Manager,

Cumbum branch, informed that 240 days in a calendar year can be considered for regularization. Accordingly, he

issued the certificate to that extent. Thus, from the statement of the witness WW1 it is not proved that workman had

worked for 240 days continuously within 12 months preceding the date of his termination. Therefore, in the want of

proof condition precedent i.e., 240 days continuous service the protection under Section 25F from retrenchment is

not available to workman and he can not claim that his termination is in violation of Sec.25F since he failed to

discharge his initial burden of proof in this regard.

23.

On the other hand, Respondent witness MW1 in his statement has categorically stated that the workman has

not completed the service of 240 days continuously in any year which has not been challenged by the workman in

the cross examination of the witness. Further, the workman has filed document to fortify his claim of continuous

service for 240 days in the Respondent bank. Ex.W1 reveals that it is the representation moved by the workman to

Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, therein he has mentioned that he has served for 69 days from 1.10.91

to 7.2.92 and from 15.2.92 to 23.9.9, total 200 days. Thus, he claimed that he has served for more than 240 days, but

the period of working days mentioned in the Section 101 of Evidence Act goes to show that he has done the service

in piece-meal manner and when the exigencies occurred in the Respondent bank. That can not be considered a

continuous service for 240 days as required u/s 25F and 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, Ex.W3 is

also a certificate issued by the Respondent bank regarding number of working days of the workman. It also shows

that the workman had worked for 115 days in different periods. Further rEx.W4 is also a certificate of temporary

service which goes to reveal that the workman had worked in total for 200 days and it also shows that he had worked

in different periods, in piece-meal manner that may also be termed as continuous service. Therefore, in view of the

evidence adduced by the workman to prove the plea of 240 days of continuous service is not proved by his own

evidence. Therefore, the workman failed to prove his termination from service in contravention of provision of

Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently he is not entitled for reinstatement into service.

The Points No. I & II answered accordingly.

24.

Point No. III:- Point No.III pertains to the question whether petitioner workman is entitled for

absorption/regularization in the employment of respondent bank on the post of messenger as per terms and conditions

under various settlements arrived at between the federation association of the workman and management of the bank.

25.

In view of the terms and conditions arrived at between the federation of Employees and Bank management

in the year 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1996 we embark upon to consider the submission/plea made by the petitioner in

his claim petition. The learned council for petitioner would submit that as per terms and conditions of various

settlement dated 17^th November 1987, settlement dated 16^th July 1988, settlement dated 26^th April 1991, settlement

dated 9^th January 1991, settlement dated 30^th July 1996 arrived at between State Bank of India management and All

India State Bank of India Staff Federation, his name was included in the panel 1989 prepared for regularization in the

employment. But, despite the vacancies lying in the various branches of respondent bank, he was not given

employment and his juniors were provided employment in preference to his candidature. Therefore, he submit for

direction to the respondent bank to appoint him as a regular employee in the bank on the basis that he has put in a

number of working days in the employment of respondent bank. The workman has placed reliance upon certain

decisions of apex court in support of his plea:-

a) State Bank of India vs N Sundar Mani 1976 AIR 1111; b) Kuldeep Singh vs G. M. Instrument Design

Development Facilities centre; Civil Appeal Date of Decision 3^rd Dec 2010; c) K S Ravindran vs Branch Manager

New Delhi , Civil Appeal No. 4220 of 2015, Date of decision 6th May 2015; d) Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time

Temporary LIC Employees Association vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Civil Appeal 6950 of 2009.

26.

In order to appreciate the rival contention and evidence of both the parties in the present matter, it would be

apposite to mention provisions regarding terms and conditions for the recruitment and regularization of temporary

2240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and casual/daily wages workman under settlements dated 17.11.87, 16.7.1988, 27.10.1988, 9.1.1991 and 30.7.1996

arrived at between State Bank of India and Federation of State Bank of India Employees Association. It is admitted

fact by both the parties that the recruitment/regularization of the temporary workman and casual/daily wages workman

of the Respondent bank has to be regulated by the terms and conditions of these aforesaid settlement arrived at

between the parties and the same are binding upon both the parties.

Sec.18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides:-

“ Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding:-

(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of

conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.”

Respondent contended that under provision of Sec.18(1) of the ID Act, both parties are bound by the terms and

conditions enunciated in the settlement and since the Petitioner moved the application for regularization and attended

the interview in response to call letter issued under settlement. Now he can not back out from it and can not take

plea otherwise. I find force in the argument of Respondent.

In this regard, the reference of case law, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National

Engineer Industries Vs. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No.16832/1996 decided on 1.12.1999, three Judge

Bench of the Apex Court have held, “In Ram Pukar Singh and Ors. Vs. Heavy Engineering Corporation and Qrs.

[1994] 6 SCC 145 this Court said that a settlement arrived at between the management and the sole recognised union

of workmen under section 12(3) read with section 18 of the Act would be binding on all the workmen whether

members of the union or not.”

Similarly, in the present matter also Federation of Bank Employees and Bank management has signed the

settlements for regularization of temporary and casual employees, therefore, Petitioner workman can not seek any

claim outside the settlement.

27.

In reply to the claim of the petitioner regarding regularization, the respondent contended that on 17^th

November, 1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and management bank under section 2(P) read with

section 18(1) of the ID Act 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central Rules 1957) and as per settlement

the temporary employees were categorized into 3 categories detailed as under:

i) Category 'A' : Those, who have completed 240 days of temporary service in calendar months or less after

01.07.1975.

ii) Category 'B': Those, who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36

calendar months after 01.07.1975.

iii) Category 'C': Those, who have completed a minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year

after 01.07.1975 or minimum of 70 days aggregate temporary service in any continuous block of 36 calendar

months after 01.07.1975.

28.

In the 1^st settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorized above would be given a

chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the Bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to

arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16^th July 1988, a further agreement was arrived at between the Federation

and the Bank where by it was agreed to substitute the period for consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place

of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the settlement dated 17.11.1987.

29.

Further, it is contended that on 27^th October 1988 a further agreement was arrived at between the federation

and management bank, i.e., third settlement, class 1-A was incorporated according to which all persons who have

been engaged on casual basis to work in leave/casual vacancies of messengers, farrash, cash koolies, water boys,

sweepers etc., for any of the period mentioned in category A, B, C will be given a chance for being considered for

permanent appointment in the bank services against vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992. The Government of

India wide its letter dated 16^th August 1990 issued guidelines to all the Public Sector Banks with regards to

recruitment and absorptions of temporary employees in public sector banks. The set guidelines were issued to

implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by the committee constituted in this regard. The

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2241

approach papers specified that the cases of the temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of the

temporary services in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of section 25F of the ID Act may be

decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. It was further directed that in respect of

temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months a settlement could

be avoided and however if the management so desired they could enter into consolation settlement with the

representative union. It is contended that although the government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of

the employees who had put in temporary services of 90 or more days after 1^st January 1982, the bank by way of

further concession enter into settlement even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such the

question of violation doesn't arise in any case, those were only broad guidelines and not directives. Thus, the claim

raised by the disputants in this regard are untenable and devoid of merits. On 9^th January 1991, 4^th settlement was

entered into between the Staff Federation and Management and it was agreed to substitute the year 1992 with 1994 to

the first settlement dated 17^th November 1987, regarding the cases of temporary employees and casual/ daily wagers

separately in the vacancies likely to arise upto 1994, 1995 and 1996 respectively. The separate panels were to be

prepared for temporary employees and casual employees for filling up the vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in

respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual daily wagers. In terms of settlement the management after

following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panel of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted

as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered

for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone wise separately for messengers and non messengers in

descending orders of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e., 1^st July 1975 to 31^st

July 1988, for it is further contended that for implementation of bipartite settlement in respect of absorption of

temporary employees, Regional Labour Commissioner Central conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement

was arrived at between the Federation and the Management and it was agreed that both the panels of temporary

employees and daily wagers/casual employees would be kept alive upto March 1997 and the vacancies as agreed to

under the afore set out settlement will be filled from the both the list concurrently. This agreement was signed by both

the parties on dated 9^th June, 1995. It is submitted that in pursuance of conciliation proceedings a settlement was

arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and Management Bank on 30^th July 1996 under

section 2(p) read with section 18(1) of ID Rules 1957 which is binding on both the parties that is called 5th settlement.

As per 5^th settlement it was agreed by Federation and Management Bank that both the panels of temporary employees

and daily wagers/casual employees will be kept alive upto March 1997 for filling the vacancies existing/arrived at as

on 31^st December 1994 and thereafter the panel would lapse. It was also agreed that as leave reserved will be filled by

the end of 31^st March 1997. Another memorandum of understanding dated 27^th February 1997 was signed as per

agreement 403 messengerial vacancies were filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion

from full time non messengerial staff in the usual manner. It is further contended that vacancies as agreed upon were

filled with eligible candidates in the panels and the petitioner herein has not put in more number of days than those

persons who have been absorbed. The petitioner who has put in aggregate temporary services of less than 240 days in

a continuous 12 months period during 1^st July, 1975 to 31^st July, 1988 had no right to seek a direction to consider his

candidature for absorption in the Management Bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into

thereon. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner has been considered under the settlement dated 17^th

November, 1987, 16^th July, 1988, 27^th October, 1988, 9^th January, 1991 and 30^th July, 1996. Having got his case

considered under the provisions and terms of aforesaid settlements all the provisions and terms of settlement are also

binding on petitioner. The Management Bank has not violated any of the provisions and terms of the settlement.

Petitioner didn't fall under the protected category of employees as provided for and contemplated under the ID Act.

He is entitled to rights and obligations regulated under such settlement and panel has been prepared in compliance

with terms agreed to under settlement. It is also contended that the aforesaid settlements being expressively time

bound and panels prepared in pursuance thereof having lapsed and ceased to exist as at the end of the designated

period viz., 31^st March, 1997 and the remaining candidates on the panels including the applicant have no right or

claim of whatsoever nature as against the Bank as was agreed and undertaken under the settlement. It is further

2242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contended that if the petitioner didn't intend to accept the settlement he should've raised the objection before appearing

for interview and consequent empanelment. Having claimed the benefits accrued under settlement and the consequent

empanelment etc., the applicant is debarred and stopped from questioning the validity of settlement. As per settlement

dated 9^th January, 1991 vacancies arising upto December, 1994 will be filled from 1989 panel on the basis of

seniority and thereafter said panel is to be lapsed and the remaining candidates have no claims and similarly panel of

daily wagers enlisted under 1992 panel will be used for filling vacancies which may arise upto end of 1994.

Thereafter said panel also stand lapsed and remaining candidates waitlisted therein will have no claim of whatsoever

nature for being considered for absorption in the Bank. Therefore, it is contended that the panels were already lapsed

on 31^st March, 1997 and since the vacancies were already filled up by absorbing the temporary attendants under daily

wages employees respectively in order of their seniority in the empanelment engaging there services doesn't arise. It is

submitted that the person who doesn't have the requisite number of days as per the agreement they can't be considered

for permanent absorption. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidate will be considered for

absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. The mere empanelment of the petitioner will not give any right

for absorption in favor of the petitioner and keeping alive the panel after 31^st March, 1997 is contrary to the

settlement arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and Management Bank. Hence, the said settlement

have force of law and are binding on parties. By virtue of being on panel, the settlements have been duly acted upon

by the applicants and consequently the present applicant is also bound by the terms of such settlements. Therefore

allegation made and the relief sought under this claim petition is only untenable, misconceived and devoid of merits.

Since the panels under the settlements were expressly made time bound, the last extension of the period expired on

31^st March, 1997 in such circumstances those temporary employees who unfortunately couldn't be accommodated for

want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization under this settlement or otherwise.

30.

Further, Respondent submitted that some writs were filed by certain temporary employees who were also

called for interview and empanelled. In Writ Petition No.12964/94, the Hon'ble High Court went into the similar

contentions in detail and the learned Judge also referred to the settlements and subsequently held that the petitioners

therein were not entitled for any relief and the only relief they can claim is enforcement of settlements, if there is any

right flowing from it or it has been violated. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is as follows:-

"It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff

Federation which is the majority union and the bank management is binding on the petitioners also. It is not at all the

case of the petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the Bank's Management. If the

petitioner had worked in the Bank on Part-time basis before 31.5.94, that itself would not vest in his a right to claim

that his services should be regularised on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the

petitioner in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the petitioner to

claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the Bank Management. As already pointed out

that it is not the grievance of the petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the

petitioner has been denied by the Bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial

ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No

costs".

In view of the above observation of Hon’ble High Court workman can claim his relief within the terms and

conditions of settlement. Learned counsel for workman would submit that as per the terms and conditions of

settlement arrived at between the Federation of Employees Association and Bank Management the workman was

issued call letter and in pursuance of that letter he appeared for interview and his name was included in the panel of

the employees for the post of messenger as a regular employee but he was not given appointment by the respondent.

It's also contended that the person junior to him has been given the appointment in preference to his candidature.

31.

Workman submits that he was asked to attend the interview on 3^rd July, 1989 and his name was included in

the panel. It is further submitted that management terminated his services on 31^st March, 1997 suddenly although

there was sufficient work with the respondent. He has also submitted that there are several vacancies in the

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2243

respondent bank and he is willing to work in any capacity to eak out his livelihood and to help his poor family

members.

32.

In order to prove his claim for regularization in the service of the Respondent bank the workman examined

himself as WW1. In chief examination he reiterated the averments made in claim petition and stated that he was

called for interview for the selection panel in the year 1989 and was selected but he was not issued with regularization

order. Further the witness states that he was selected in the second panel itself and management entered into various

settlements with Federation of employees on 17.11.87, 16.7.88, 27.10.88, 9.1.91 and 30.7.96. Further, he states that

agreement was revalidated for two years and it was promised to fill up the vacancies by 31.3.97. He also states that

the Zonal Manager at Tirupathi has called 1992 selected list and gave posting orders by designation General

Attendant and they were all his juniors. This witness was cross examined by the Respondent’s counsel and in cross

examination witness has stated, “I was not sponsored by any employment exchange and did not undergo the regular

process of selection before my engagement as temporary messenger in the branch. I did not work continuously. I

used to work depending upon availability of work in the branch. I applied for appointment as Messenger, in response

to the advertisement issued by the bank and the union in the year 1989, I was called for interview and “mu name was

included in the panel of temporary messengers in the year 1989.” Further, witness states that, “panel was prepared

basing upon the number of days of service, put in by the temporary employees. Some of the temporary employees

whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the

panel.” Further stated that he is not aware of the settlement. The witness admitted that, “he is not having any

documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days than him was given appointment in

the bank. It is true that he is not having any document to show that any of his juniors is continuing in service

in the bank.” Thus, from the statement of the WW1 made in cross examination, he himself admitted that he has no

documentary evidence to show that any junior has been regularized in the service in preference to his candidature.

Further, he could not name even a single person junior to him who has been regularized in in violation of panel list in

the employment of Respondent bank. Thus, the allegation of the workman that the Respondent in violation of the

panel list has regularized his juniors and he has been denied is not proved by the evidence of WW1 himself. As per

rule of evidence, Sec.101 of the Indian Evidence Act initial burden of proof to prove the assertion or allegation of

the Petition lies upon the workman, but he failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to discharge his

burden of proof and the plea taken by workman can not be said to be proved in such cases.

33.

On the other hand, Respondent has refuted the allegation made by the workman that junior workman has

been regularized in the service in preference to his candidature by violating seniority. Therefore, in these

circumstances the workman has to prove by adducing the cogent and reliable evidence in this regard. But he could

not point out single instance in this respect. Hence, his submission in this regard not acceptable.

34.

On the other hand, Respondent bank has submitted that the regularization was done as per the seniority of

the workmen in the empanelled list and no person has been given preference over the seniors or eligible persons. The

workman could not produce any evidence regarding malafide intention of the bank as he alleges.

35.

The fact of the inclusion of the name of the workman in the panel list for regularization is admitted by both

the parties. But the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has retained his juniors in the employment and also

recruited some new workers without giving him opportunity on priority basis. Respondent refuted the allegations of

the workman in this regard. As per basic principle of burden of proof lies upon the person who asserts. Therefore,

the burden of proof under Sec.101 of Evidence Act, to prove this fact that the Respondent has retained junior to him in

the employment and did not provide any opportunity to the workman on priority basis, lies upon the workman. But

Petitioner workman failed to discharge his initial burden of proof, in this regard. Therefore, contention of the

workman is not acceptable since it being bare allegation without support of any evidence.

36.

The Petitioner workman neither in his pleadings nor in his oral or documentary evidence has pointed out

any such instance of violation of the seniority of panel list. As regards the submission of the workman’s counsel that

all the records have been retained by the Respondent regarding preparation and selection of the panel list and

2244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent deliberately did not produce it’s evidence. It will be pertinent to mention here that the industrial dispute

between the workman and Respondent bank arised in the year 1997 and almost 26 years has elapsed since then, but

the workman did not endeavour to procure panel list prepared by the Respondent bank wherein name of workman

was included. The burden of proof lies upon the workman to prove the violation of panel list in terms of seniority as

he alleges. The Respondent has specifiedly denied such violation of seniority in the panel list. Now onus of proof

shift upon the workman to prove the violation of the seniority in the list by evidence. But onus has not been

discharged by the workman in this regard. He might have procured such list at the initial stage of the industrial

dispute or even during the hearing proceeding either through RTI or through other legal mode, by asking to

Respondent for it. But, he himself did not took pain to obtain the documents pertaining to his claim of employment.

Now, at this stage after a long span of time of about 26 years he can not be permitted to blame the Respondent for it.

Moreover, it would be pertinent to mention here that Civil Appeal No.6883-6884 of 2016, State Bank of India Vs

Chinnaponnu & Another, was filed by workman in the similar matter which was decided on 3.10.2019 wherein,

the question was of the jumbling up of list of employees who were temporary employees and casual labour /daily

wagers. In that case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed to the Respondent bank to file the panel list and in

compliance of that direction appellant bank filed the affidavit wherein it was categorically stated:

(a)

Only temporary employees were absorbed who were wait listed pursuant to the first settlement of 1987 for

which advertisement was issued on 1^st August, 1988 and wait list published is in 1992 in accordance with

their seniority;

(b)

The wait list wi1l operate up-till 31^st March, 1997 for vacancies as existed on 31^st December, 1994;

(c)

The wait list published in the year 1992 does not contain any name of any casual/daily wager but only of

temporary employees;

(d)

In pursuance to the advertisement dated 1^st May, 1991 the appellant - bank received applications from daily

wagers/casual employees but in view of the injunction order dated 28^th May, 1991 no wait list of these daily

wagers/casual employees was prepared and

(e)

That there was only one wait list of employees and no other wait list.

37.

Thus, the affirmation made in affidavit by Respondent bank was accepted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Therefore, affidavit filed regarding panel list under the settlement, and the Respondent bank has affirmed that the

observation of the temporary employees was done in accordance with their seniority and there was no violation of

the seniority of the names mentioned in the panel list. Therefore, in the absence of any positive evidence, regarding

violation of seniority in the list, I am unable to accept the plea taken by workman in this regard.

38.

The workman has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India

Vs. Shri N. Sundara Money, 1976 AIR 1111, therein Hon’ble Apex Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the

State Bank of India on the ground that the workman was terminated in violation of the provision of Sec.25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But in the present matter the workman failed to satisfy the application of the provision

of condition precedent for retrenchment i.e., continuous service of 240 days in one calendar year from the date just

preceding from the date of termination as required u/s 25F and 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore,

workman finds no help from the above citations. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that he was not given any

employment due to malafide intention of respondent bank or there was violation of seniority in panel list is not

acceptable in the absence of any positive evidence on behalf of the workman..

39.

The workman has referred number of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court but these decisions pertain to relief

claimed under the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereas in the present matter workman claims on the

basis of settlement and same is binding upon both the parties u/s 18(1) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, he

would not find help from these decisions.

40.

Further, it is noteworthy here that as per settlements entered by the Federation of the Employees and Bank

Management the process was initiated for regularization of the temporary employees and casual workman and

interview was taken of all the temporary employees including the workman by the respondent and as per norms name

of the workman in order of seniority was enlisted and the petitioner in response to the interview letter appeared for

interview with all his relevant documents voluntarily then he is deemed to have seek his claim for regularization under

the terms and conditions of the said settlement and his name was included in the panel 1989 for regularization and the

regularization was done by the respondent management in order of seniority in the list. The life of said panel was to

be expired on 31^st March 1997, and it was prepared only for the vacancies to be occurred upto 31^st December 1994.

Since all the vacancies were duly filled as per terms and conditions of the settlement and the panelists exhausted with

the vacancies occurred upto 1994 and panel cease to take expire on 31^st March 1997. Now, Petitioner can't claim his

entitlement for regularization on the basis of that panel as the panel list has already been expired and exhausted on 31^st

March, 1997.

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2245

41.

The reference of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of UP vs Harish Chandra AIR 1996

SC 2173 is pertinent to mention here. In that case the question of law was involved whether High Court justified in

issuing a mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the respondents who were in the select list of the year

1987 even after the expiry of the said list, the list under the recruitment rules having the force only for a period of

1 year from the date of selection. Hon'ble Apex Court have held,

"Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule, the High

Court relying upon some earlier decisions of the Court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one

year which on the face of it is erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was

justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution

a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of

legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition.

The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or

orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the

provisions of law or to do something which in contrary to law. This being the position and in view of the Statutory rule

contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court could issue the

impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no

longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist."

In syndicate Bank and other Vs. Shankar Paul AIR 1997 SC 3091, it was held that, “Temporary were

made from the panel of eligible candidates prepared by calling names from employment exchange, the panel was

valid for only year. When the said employee claimed permanent absorption in service, the Apex Court has held that ,

whatever conditions regarding these empanelled candidates had they come an end on the expiry of one year.”

Similarly, in the present matter also the select list of the workman i.e., panel as agreed by settlement was to

be expired on 31^st March, 1997. Therefore, it cannot be further extended in any circumstances because the

respondent bank and the petitioner employee both are bound by the panel list and its expiry term as agreed under the

settlement. Respondent contended that the panel 1989 was prepared for regularization and it exhausted on

31^st March 1997 after filling the vacancies which occurred up to the 31^st December 1994 and the candidates

empanelled in that list were given the regularization in order of seniority. The Petitioner could not prove contrary to

it.

42.

Therefore, the claim of the workman for regularization in terms of settlement is unfounded and devoid of

merits as workman failed to prove his plea. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion I am of the considered

view that the petitioner workman failed to establish his claim for regularization as he alleged in his petition.

This point is answered accordingly.

43.

Point No. IV :- In view of the findings given in Points No. I, II & III, I am of the opinion that petitioner

workman is not entitled for any relief either for of reinstatement or regularization in the employment of respondent

and he is not entitled to any relief. His petition is unfounded, devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

RESULT

The action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head office, Hyderabad in terminating the

services of Shri Sayyad Nazeer Ahammad, Temporary messenger by way of oral orders with effect from 31.3.1997 is

held justified. Hence, the workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for, as such, the claim of the petitioner is

dismissed and hence, the petition is dismissed.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 1^st day of

June, 2023.

IRFAN QAMAR, Presiding Officer

2246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 1, 2023/ASHADHA 10, 1945

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Sayyad Nazeer Ahammad

MW1: Sri Alluru Rama Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photocopy of representation of WW1 dt.14.5.2003 for absorption

Ex.W2:

Photocopy of letter dt. 26.5.2000 calling for particulars of the individuals

Ex.W3:

Photocopy of service certificate of WW1 dt. 9.7.2001

Ex.W4:

Photocopy of service certificate of WW1 dt. 2.7.2001

Ex.W5:

Photocopy of Transfer Certificate of school

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt. 17.11.87

Ex.M2:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt. 16.7.88

Ex.M3:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt. 27.10.1988

Ex.M4:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt. 9.1.1991

Ex.M5:

Photocopy of conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) dt. 9.6.1995

Ex.M6:

Photocopy of settlement between Respondent and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

dt. 30.7.1996

Ex.M7:

Photocopy of Memorandum of understanding dt. 27.1.1997

Ex.M8:

Photocopy of statements giving the particulars of 1989 messenger panel.

Ex.M9:

Photocopy of statement of 1989 Non0messenger panel

Ex.M10:

Photocopy of statement of 1992 panel

Ex.M11:

Photocopy of order of Hon’ble High Court in WA No.86/98 dt. 1.5.98

Ex.M12:

Photocopy of order in SLP No.11886-11888 of 1998 dated 10.8.98

नई दिल्ली, 28 िून, 2023

का.आ. 1102.—औद्योजगक fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 (a1947 dk 14) dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj डेवलपमेंट िेजडट बैंक जलजमटेड ds izca/kra=] laca) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ’V

औद्योजगक fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj औद्योजगक vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] अिमिाबाि ds iapkV (131/2006)

izdkf”kr djrh gSA

[सं. एल-12012/13/2006-आईआर (ch-I)]

सलोनी, उप जनिेिक

[भाग II—खण् ड 3(ii)]

भारत का रािपत्र : िुलाई 1, 2023/ आषाढ़ 10, 1945

2247

New Delhi, the 28th June, 2023

S.O. 1102.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.131/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Development Credit

Bank Ltd. and their workmen.

[No. L-12012/13/2006- IR(B-I)]

SALONI, Dy. Director

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

Present: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad,

Dated 5^th April, 2023.

Reference: (CGITA) No.- 131/2006

The Assistant General Manager,

Development Credit Bank Ltd.,

204, Raheja Centre, Nariman Point,

Mumbai-400021.

…. First Party

Shri H. N. Ahari, C/o. Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha,

104, Maharana Pratap Complex,

Nr. V. S. Hospital, Ellisbridge,

Ahmedabad (GUJARAT)

…. Second Party

Advocate for the First Party employer : Shri K. V. Gadhia & Shri M. K. Patel

Advocate for the Second Party workman : None

AWARD

The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by reference adjudication Order No. L-12012/13/2006-

IR(B-I) dated 29.05.2006 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum

Labour Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Development Credit Bank Ltd. By terminating

the service of Shri H. N. Ahari w.e.f. 06.08.2003 without conducting fair disciplinary

proceedings is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

1. The matter was taken up today. First Party employer is represented through Ld. Counsels Shri K. V. Gadhia

and Shri M. K. Patel. None responded for Second Party / Workmen’s union. The reference dates back to 29.05.2006.

Second Party workmen/union has not been turning up since 04.12.2018. The second party workmen/union was

afforded an opportunity on 06.09.2022 and last opportunity on 02.01.2023 to lead evidence. It appears that the Second

Party workman’s union is not interested to proceed further in the matter.

2. The Statement of claim filed by the workmen/union is not substantiated by any evidence, hence the reference

is disposed of with the observation that the action of the management of Development Credit Bank Ltd. by

terminating the service of Shri H. N. Ahari w.e.f. 06.08.2003 is legal and justified. The union/ workman is not

entitled for any relief.

Let two copies of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for the needful and for publication U/s 17(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH-I, Presiding Officer

Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054. ^{SARVESH KUMAR}

SRIVASTAVA

Digitally signed by SARVESH

KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

Date: 2023.07.15 10:20:50

+05'30'