IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14343 OF 2020 Between: Velagala J<rishna Reddy, S/o.Suryanarayana Reddy, Age. 49 years, O/o. Kakinada, East Godavari District, R/o. Armed Reserved Police, Mummidivaram Village, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principle Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi at Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 vide D.O.No.527/2020, C.N0.355/A8/20I8, dated 25.07.2020 declaring that the Petitioner is not on duty from 09.11.2015 to 18.07.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 11.12.2019 without reinstating the petitioner into service despite the conviction is set aside by the Appellate Court and further declaring that no work no pay principle is applicable in the case of the petitioner, further directing to recover the OD salary for the out of employment period already drawn and paid to the petitioner from 01.11.2015 to 08.11.2015 and 22.06.2018 to 10/2018 despite declaring that the departmental proceedings will remain a futile violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by declaring that the petitioner is on duty on the even dates that is from 09.11.2015 to 18.07.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 11.12.2019 as he was not reinstated into service by the Respondent No.2. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Proceedings No. D.O.No.527/2020. C.No.355/A8/2018, dated 25.07.2020 issued by the Respondent No.2 in all respects including the order of recovery from the petitioner OD salary from 01.11.2015 to 08.11.2015 and 22.06.2018 to 10/2018 pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A. K. KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010217982020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] WEDNESDAY .THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14343/2020 Between: Velagala Krishna Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief; " to issue a Writ or order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of WRiT OF CERTiORARi caiiing for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the Respondent No.2 vide D.O.No.527/2020, C.NO.355/A8/2018, dated 25.07.2020 deciaring that the Petitioner is not on duty from 09.11.2015 to 18.07.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 11.12.2019 without reinstating the petitioner into service despite the conviction is set aside by the 2 Appellate Court and further declaring that no work no pay principle is applicable in the case of the petitioner, further directing to recover the OD salary for the out of employment period already drawn and paid to the petitioner from 01.11.2015 to 08.11.2015 and 22.06.2018 to 10/2018 despite declaring that the departmental proceedings will remain a futiie attempt as nothing but iiiegai arbitrary erroneous high handed and vioiative of principies of naturai Justice and Articie 14 and 21 of The Constitution of india and consequently set aside the same by declaring that the petitioner is on duty on the even dates that is from 09.11.2015 to 18.07.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 11.12.2019 as he was not reinstated into service by the Respondent No.2. t! Heard Mr.G.Raghavendra Pavan, learned counsel representing Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for the respondents. 2. 3. On hearing, it is conjointly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.1823 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024. 4. In view of the submissions made by both the petitioner’s counsel and learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Writ Petition is allowed, in terms of the above said Order in Writ Petition No.1823 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024. The impugned proceedings vide D.O.No.527/2020, C.N0.355/A8/2OI8, dated 25.07.2020 issued by the 2^"^ respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner from 09.11.2015 to 18.07.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 3 11.12.2019 as ‘On Duty’ for all the purposes including the arrears of pay and allowances, increments and promotion etc., in terms of Fundamental Rule 54(B)(3) and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall 5. stand closed. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the Order in Writ Petition 6. No.1823 of 2021, dated 18.10.2024, to this Order. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ‘ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principle Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi at Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada 3. One CC to Sri A. K. Kishore Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three C.D. Copies (Along with copy of the order dated. 18.10.2024 in W.P. No.1823 of 2021 to this Order)* Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 ORDER I 20 MAR 2025 & . Current Section ^^&OEspATCt5@5*^ WP.No.14343of2020 Co ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS 1 APHC010025832021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1823/2021 Between: Pilli Veera Venkata Satya Kumar ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.AKKISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “....to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings issued by the Respondent No 3 vide C No 8791/A1/2020 dated 28 10 2020 and the proceedings issued by the Respondent No 2 vide C No 03/OE/PR/2011 R O No 199/2016 dated 06 04 2016 in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police despite the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved apart from taking undue advantage that the period of suspension which the petitioner underwent from 30 05 2010 to 20 07 2010 without proving the charges and not considering the candidature of the petitioner totally illegal arbitrary erroneous high handed and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings issued by the Respondent No 2 vide C No 03/OE/PR/2011 R 0 No 199/2016 dated 06 04 2016 declaring that the petitioner was not on duty from 30 05 2010 to 20 07 2010 as illegal arbitrary erroneous high handed and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Prayer amended as per Court Order dated 28 02 2023 vide I A No 1 of 2023 in WP No 1823 of 2021...” 2 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was working as Constable at Yeleswaram Police Station an anonymous petition was received by the 3'^ respondent from the general public of Yeleswaram village alleging that the then Station House Officer, Sub Inspector of Police N.Pothuraju are extracting money from the villagers even for simple disputes. Basing on that the petitioner was put under suspension from 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010. When the suspension is in progress, the Departmental enquiry was conducted. During pendency of the said enquiry, the respondent called for willingness letter from the eligible candidates for sending them to pre- promotional training fit to act as head constables in which the petitioner given willingness and he was sent for training. The 2"^ respondent vide proceedings in C.NO.03/0E-PR/2011 R.O.No. 199/2016 dated 6.4.2016 has concluded that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved and hence further proceedings were dropped and the suspension period is treated as Not on Duty. While the things stood thus, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents to consider his candidature to be promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police as no charges leveled against him were proved and on the other hand the procession witnesses who turned hostile in the enquiry is not proved. Therefore, the case in CC No.298/2016 which was registered against the petitioner was ended acquittal. In fact the 2"'^ respondent through its proceedings dated 6.4.2016 itself dropped the proceedings against the petitioner. When the 2"^^ respondent has dropped the proceedings as the 3 charges were not proved against the petitioner, the period of suspension i.e., 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010 cannot be treated as Not on Duty, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, submitted that, under Rule 8 where suspension is revoked exonerating a person fully his/her case may be considered for promotion with retrospective where the disciplinary proceedings finally resulted in a penalty he will debarred during the period of penalty and subject to a minimum period of one year from the date of reinstatement. In case, the suspension period itself, is treated as substantive penalty, he shall be debarred for promotion/appointment by transfer by a period of one year both the selection and non selection post. It is further submitted that the treating of suspension period not on punishment as per the G.O.Ms.No 331 Genl. Admn. (Ser.C) Dept, dt.03.05.2013 shall be considered with prospective effect only. Further he has issued with speaking orders explaining the reasons for not considering for his promotion as follows: HC 970 Sri. P.V.V.Satya Kumar of Rangampeta PS has submitted a representation include his name in the seniority list for promotion from HCs to ASIs in view of the order dated 23.07.2020 in W.P.No.12103 of 2020 of the Hob'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In this connection, he is hereby informed that he was placed under suspension A/N to 20.07.2010 FN for the delinquency of duties, conducting oral enquiry the disciplinary authority (i.e.,) Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru has passed final orders vide After proceedings R.O.No.199/2016 (C.NO.3/OEPR/2011) dt.06.04.2016 dropping 4 further action against the charged officer but the period of suspension under went by charged officer from 30.05.2010 A/N to 20.07.2010 FN was treated as not on duty as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile in the enquiry. , 3^^ cited, have issued orders that, the promotion shall be considered with prospective effect only in respect of the cases where ii) Charges were dropped using the words such as let off, warning, benefit of doubt etc. In this case, the OE was not proved due to turned hostile of prosecution witnesses and hence further action was dropped and the period of suspension from 30.05.2010 AN to 20.07.2010 FN was treated as "NOT ON DUTY" and it is not clean exoneration from the OE charge. Hence, the representation of petitioner for including of his name in the seniority list of HCs fit to act as ASIs with retrospective effect is considered and rejected. Further, the Govt, in G.O.Ms.No. 4. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, has placed reliance on a judgment of High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad reported in K.Ram Prasad and Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda and others^ , wherein it was held that: “...b) The enquiry officer was appointed and submitted report on 15.04.2011 holding that the charge is not proved. Though the Government passed G.O.Rt.No.578, dated 12.05.2014 dropping further action, but treated the period of suspension as not on duty, which is highly arbitrary and unjust. The Government considered several cases WP No. 19286 of 2017, dated 22.11.2022 5 of other Sis/Inspectors, who were red-handediy trapped by ACB and treated their suspension period as on duty soon after their acquittal. As per the instruction issued, vide Govt. Memo No.34911/Ser.ll/A3/2011, dated 22.05.2013 communicated through Chief Office Endt.No.4126/Appeal-1/2011, dated 21.06.2013 the 4th respondent issued directions to issue dissenting note to the petitioner and .Ramnarsaiah, SI of police (Retired) under Rule 21(2) ARCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and indicated the charges are held proved and then refer the issue with further explanation of the Charged Officers to Government for finalizing the case under Rule 9 of AP Revised Rules, 1980. 6. Whereas, learnecJ Assistant Government Pleader also while reiterating the averments in the counter, has placed reliance on a Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Shri B.D. Gupta v. State of wherein the Apex Court held that: decision of Haryana^ The appellant in that case had been exonerated of the charges framed against him in a departmental enquiry. Government heid, however, that the appeiiant's suspension and the departmental enquiry instituted against him "were not whoiiy. unjustified". This Court heid that ci. (b) of the Fundamentai Ruie 54 wouid be appiicabie in all cases where the officer concerned is not honourably acquitted. Since in that case the Government servant had dearly not been fully exonerated of the charges levied against him, it was open to Government to decide what period of absence from duty during the period of suspension shouid be treated as period spent on duty and, also, what proportion of pay and allowances should be given to him. This decision cannot appiy to the instant case for the simpie reason that Government, by withdrawing the proceedings initiated against the appeiiant in (1) Civil Appeals Nos. 1561 and 1562 of 1965 decided by the Supreme Court on 6 October 1967. respect of Charge 1(b), made it impossible for the appellant to get himself fully exonerated. Since the appellant had been exonerated of Charge 1(a) and since Charge 1(b) was withdrawn, it is impossible for Government to proceed on the basis as if the appellant has not been fully exonerated or to assume that the order of suspension was one which was not wholly unjustified.In that view of the matter, we do not think that case of the State of Assam and Anr. v. Raghava Rajagopalachari (supra) can be of any assistance to the respondents. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. As seen from the impugned Memo in C.No.8791/A1/2020, dated 28.10.2020, wherein it was mentioned that: “Further, the govt, in G.O.ms.No.331 Genl.Adrnn.(Ser.C) dated 03.05.2013, issued orders that the promotion shall be considered with prospective effect only in respect of the cases where (i) Charges were dropped using the words such as let off, warning, benefit of doubt etc. ^ AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2472 6 In this case, the OE was not proved due to turned hostile of prosection witnesses and hence further action was dropped and the period of suspension from 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010 FN was treated as “NOT ON LDUTY" and it is not clean exoneration from the OE charge. Hence the petitioner representation for including of his name in the seniority list of HCs fit to act as ASIs with retrospective effect, is considered and rejected." 9. And as seen from the consequential impugned proceedings, dated 6.4.2016, issued by the 2^^^ respondent, wherein it was mentioned that “..vide reference 3^^ cited, holding that the charge against the charged officer Sri P.V.V.S.Kumar, PC 970, formerly Yeieswara PS and now working in Gandepalli PS of East Godavari District as “Not Proved”. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that Fundamental Rule 54-B sub- Rule (3) (4) and (5) reads as under: "(3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended; Provided that where such Authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed, due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation (within sixty days from the date on which communication to this regard is served on him) and after considering the representation, if any submitted by him, direct for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay (only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine). (4) In a case falling under sub-rule-(3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (8) and (9). be paid [such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances] to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period [which in no wp_19286_2017 12 SN,J case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served] as may be specified in the notice. 11. 11. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in M.Gopal Krishna Naidu V State of M.P.^; (ii) in a case of P.J.Aqarwal v State of tl.P"* and (iii) B.H.Marwaha v Union of India^, held that “where an order proposed to be ^ AIR 1968 SC 240 ‘’(1973)1 SLR 194 ^ (1973) 2 SLR 315 7 passed in FRs which causes pecuniary loss, an opportunity must be given to the employee likely to be affected. 12. In a judgment of the Apex Court reported in M.Gopal Krishna Naidu V The State of Madhya Pradesh^, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paras 5 and 7 observed as under: '(5) Under F.R. 54 where a government servant is reinstated, the authority has to consider and make a specific order (i) regarding pay and allowances payable to him for the period of his absence from duty and (ii) whether such period of absence should be treated as one spent on duty. The consideration of these questions depends on whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Government servant had been fully exonerated and in case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. If the authority forms such an opinion the Government servant is entitled to full pay and allowances which he would have been entitled to had the order of dismissal, removal or suspension, as the case may be, not been passed. Where the authority cannot form such an opinion the Government servant may be given such proportion of pay and allowances as the authority wp_19286_2017 13 SN,J may prescribe. In the former case the period of absence from duty has to be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes and in the latter case such period is not to be treated as period spent on duty. But the authority has the power in suitable cases to direct that such period of absence shall be treated as period spent on duty in which case the government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowances. (7) The order as to whether a given case falls under Cl. 2 or Cl. 5 of the Fundamental Rule must depend on the examination by the authority of all the facts and circumstances of the case and his forming the opinion therefrom of two factual findings; whether the employee was fully exonerated and in case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. Besides, an order passed under this rule would obviously affect the government servant adversely if it is one made under CIs. 3 and 5. Consideration under this rule depending as it does on facts and circumstances in their entirety, passing an order on the basis of factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and such an order resulting in pecuniary loss to the government servant must be held to be an objective rather than a subjective function. The very nature of the function implies the duty to act judicially. In such a case if an opportunity to show cause against the action, proposed is not afforded, as admittedly it was not done in the present case, the order Is liable to be struck down as invalid on the ground that it is one in breach of the principles of natural justice." 13. The Division Bench of the Apex Court in a recent judgment dated 23.03.2022 reported in 2022 SCC online SC 378 in Civil Appeal No.2386/2022 in State of Rajasthan & Another vs. Manqat Lai Sidana dealing with a similar situation at paras 16 to 24 observed as under: Para 16 ^AIR 1968 SC page 240 8 Rule 54 with which we are concerned contemplates an amalgam of situations which deal with disciplinary wp_19286_2017 14 SN,J proceedings culminating in dismissal, compulsory retirement and removal and it also deals with absence from duty on account of suspension. In other words, when an employee at the end of the disciplinary proceedings is punished in terms thereof and as a result of the order passed is reinstated, then the competent authority is called upon to consider and pass specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid for the period for absence from duty. The Rule appears to separately contemplate the duty to provide for the pay and allowances for the period of suspension ending with the date of retirement on superannuation as the case may be. In other words, the Rule in its application contemplates a situation wherein a Government servant being dismissed, removed, compulsory retired or suspended is reinstated. It also takes in a case where but for his retirement, he would have been reinstated while under suspension. In both these cases, the duty of the competent authority is to pass the order within the contemplation of Rule 54(1 )(a) and (b). This means that apart from dealing with pay and allowances, as to whether the period of absence is to be treated as duty must be dealt with. This flows from Rule 54(1 )(b). The manner in which the authority is to pass the order is regulated by subsequent provisions in Rule 54. Sub-rule 54(2) oontemplates that the competent authority must examine the proceedings, apply its mind, and find whether it is a case where the Government servant at the end of the day has been fully exonerated. In the case of suspension where a person being under suspension is reinstated, the duty lies on the competent authority to consider the question as to whether the suspension was justified or wholly unjustified. If the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant would be entitled to be paid the full pay and dearness allowance which he was entitled to had he not been suspended. The same is the case of the Government servant visited with the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. If it is found that at the end of the day that the penalty was wholly unjustified in that, on merit it is found that the employee stands completely exonerated, he would be entitled to get full pay and dearness allowance. Rule 54(3) is the residuary clause. The provisions of Rule 54(2) and (3) are mutually exclusive. In other words, if an employee is not fully exonerated, he is to be given such proportion of the pay and allowances as the competent authority may prescribe. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 54 is relatable to sub-rule 54(1 )(b). In other words, whenever there is re- instatement in the circumstances attracting Rule 54, the wp_19286_2017 15 SN,J authority is to pass a specific order relating to the pay and allowances to be paid and also as to whether the period of such absence is being treated as period spent on duty. Both these aspects must be reflected in the order. Para 17 In the case where there is full exoneration, the rule-maker had made it clear that the period of absence is to be treated as duty for all purposes. However, the provisions of Rule 54(5) contemplate a situation where the employee is not fully exonerated and therefore is governed by Rule 54(3). Then the period of absence is not to be treated as duty unless the authority specifically directs that it shall be duty for any specified purpose. The proviso to Rule 54(5) contemplates that it is open to the Government to direct that the period of absence shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible for Government servant. This would appear to be the scope and purport of Rule 54. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, the contention of the petitioner that, the 3'"'^ respondent, without applying his mind and without considering the proceedings dated 06.04.2016 issued by the 2 respondent had denied with promotion of petitioner as Assistant Inspector of Police (Civil), when he was not punished and there are no departmental enquiries pending against the petitioner denying his right of promotion and degrading his seniority, is totally illegal. nd 9 15. This court further observed that earlier the petitioner herein has filed WPNo.12103 of 2020 before this Court seeking to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Head Constable and the same was disposed of on 23.07.2020 directing the 3'^'^ respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. In pursuance of the same, the 3 respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his case for promotion. rd 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above, this Court is of the opinion that, as per Section 54(B)(3) of Fundamental Rules, it clearly states that, if an employee is not fully exonerated, he is to be given such proportion of the pay and allowances as the competent authority may prescribe. Therefore, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned o rd proceedings in C.No.8791/A1/2020, dated 28.10.2020 issued by the 3 respondent and the proceedings vide C.No.03/OE/PR/2011, R.O.No. 199/2016, dated 06.04.2016 issued by the respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to regularize the suspension period of the petitioner from 30.05.2010 to 20.07.2010 as ‘On Duty’ for all the purposes including the arrears of pay and allowances, increments and promotion etc., in terms of Fundamental Rule 54(B)(3) and pass appropriate 10 orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 18. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date: 18-10-2024 Gvl