1 2025:CGHC:61922 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1953 of 2023 Order Reserved on 10.12.2025 Order Delivered on 19.12.2025 Prashant Kumar Mishra S/o Sudhindra Nath Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o Digambar Jain Mandir Road, Maithilipara, Durg, Police Station And Post Durg, Civil And Revenue, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Balod, Civil And Revenue District, Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Bemetara, Civil And Revenue, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Korea, Civil And Revenue District, Korea-Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.19 18:52:23 +0530 2 WPS No. 6450 of 2023 Bhisham Kumar Sahu S/o Babulal Sahu, Aged About 36 Years R/o Sahu Para, Village Malood, Post Bhendsar, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bemetara, Civi And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Korea, Civil And Revenue District Korea Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 7421 of 2023 Kapish Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Prabhakar Chandra Suryavanshi, Aged About 36 Years R/o 237, Polsay Para, Ward No. 27, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod, Civil And Revenue District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Korea, Civil And Revenue District Korea Baiknthpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6303 of 2023 Khemant Sahu S/o Punit Ram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 12 Kabeernagar, Dhourabhantha Parpodi, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod Civil And Revenue District Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bemetara Civil And Revenue District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Korea Civil And Revenue District Korea - Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 6237 of 2023 Chhunni Lal Chandeshwar S/o. Mannu Lal Chandeshwar, Aged About 43 Years Resident Ward No.07, Kodwa, Mohanbhatta, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner 4 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod, Civil And Revenue District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Korea, Civil And Revenue District Korea- Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6223 of 2023 Govind Kumar Sahu, S/o. Prit Lal Sahu, Aged About 44 Years Resident Ward No. 10, Hanuman Mandir, Saja, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod, Civil And Revenue District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Korea, Civil And Revenue District - Korea-Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6126 of 2023 Mahendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Maniklal Verma, Aged About 40 Years R/o H.No. 301, Ward No. 16, Dilapahari, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director, Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod, Civil And Revenue District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Korea, Civil And Revenue District Korea- Baikunthpur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 6059 of 2023 Guneet Kumar Sahu S/o- Shri Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o- H. No. 64, Ward No. 05, Bhanpuri, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 2 - Director Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, Civil And Revenue, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Balod, Civil And Revenue, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Bemetara, Civil And Revenue, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Korea, Civil And Revenue, District : Korea-Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WPS No. 5421 of 2023 Sunil Soni S/o Basant Soni Aged About 37 Years R/o New Colony, Gaya Nagar, Ward No.3 P.S. And Post Durg Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Health Services Pension Bada, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Balod, Civil And Revenue District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Bemetara, Civil And Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Korea, Civil And Revenue District Korea-Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 7 For Petitioners : Ms. Natasha Khan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. K. Kashyap, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Order 1. Heard Ms. Natasha Khan, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. R. K. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. Since a common question of law and facts is involved in all these cases, they were, therefore, clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common order, in order to avoid repetition of facts and to ensure consistency in adjudication. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, WPS No.1953/2023 has been treated as the lead case, and the facts, pleadings and reliefs stated therein are being referred to for the purpose of adjudication of all the connected matters, unless specifically stated otherwise. 4. All the petitioners are aggrieved by the acts and omissions of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.1, whereby their representations seeking redressal of their grievance regarding appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health Worker (Male) (for short, “MPHW (M)”) have been rejected. 8 5. The grievance of the petitioners is founded on the contention that the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non- Ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short, “Rules of 2013”), though given prospective effect, ought to have been made retrospective in operation. According to the petitioners, due to non- consideration of the applicability of the Rules of 2013 with retrospective effect, despite their having successfully completed the requisite course for MPHW (M), they were denied appointment to the said post. 6. It is further contended that such non-consideration has resulted in grave hardship to the petitioners, as they have remained unemployed notwithstanding their eligibility and qualification. Consequently, the petitioners seek a direction for their appointment to the post of MPHW (M) by applying the Rules of 2013, after setting aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2023. In the alternative, in the event the relief of appointment is not granted, the petitioners have prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs in lieu of the alleged loss and hardship suffered by them. 7. The petitioner in lead case, i.e. WPS No.1953/2023 has sought for following relief(s) :- “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 9 05/01/2023 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of MPHW (M), in the interest of justice.” OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- (in Words-Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) in lieu of appointment. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 8. Brief facts of the cases are that the petitioners had completed one year training in MPHW (M), which was duly recognized by the State Government, after completing the 10+2 pattern in the year 2012. Pursuant thereto, the Chief Medical and Health Officers of different districts of the State of Chhattisgarh issued advertisements inviting applications for appointment to the post of MPHW (M). In this regard, a similar notification was issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Durg, on 04.05.2012. 9. The petitioners, being duly qualified and possessing the requisite eligibility, applied for the said post. A select list was also prepared in which the names of the petitioners found place. However, despite their selection, no appointment orders were issued 10 thereafter. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed WPS No.668/2012, challenging the advertisement itself on the ground that the eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of MPHW (M) was not in accordance with law. It was specifically contended that the paramedical certificate course completed by them fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria and, therefore, the petitioners who had completed one year paramedical certificate course were entitled to be considered eligible for appointment to the post of MPHW (M). 10. In order to apprise the authorities as well as this Court, the petitioners filed writ petitions contending that their paramedical training certificates ought to have been considered and that they were entitled to appointment as MPHW (M) on the basis of such certificates. They further pleaded that they had been subjected to discrimination. Another ground raised was that the qualification prescribed in the advertisement was not in consonance with law and was contrary to the M.P./C.G. Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial (related to the Directorate of Health Services) Class-III Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 (for short, “Rules of 1989”), as amended in the year 1997. 11. This Court, however, dismissed the writ petitions vide order dated 08.08.2013, holding that the grievance raised by the petitioners regarding equivalence of degrees could not be entertained, as the determination of equivalency falls within the exclusive domain of 11 the State Government or the Rule Making Authority, namely, the Governor of the State. It was observed that the authorities or the Court are not empowered to declare or hold any course equivalent to another. On this ground alone, 39 writ petitions were dismissed while the matter was pending adjudication. 12. Subsequently, the State Government issued a memorandum dated 31.08.2013, whereby one year paramedical training was declared to be equivalent to one year MPHW (M) training. Since the writ petitions had already been dismissed on the issue of equivalency, the aggrieved petitioners preferred Writ Appeal No.530/2013 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench, vide order dated 30.10.2014, disposed of the writ appeals granting liberty to the petitioners to submit representations before the State Government, with a direction to consider the same in accordance with law. 13. Thereafter, another Writ Appeal No.356/2014 was filed before the Division Bench, which was also disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2014, in terms of the order dated 30.10.2014. Despite such directions, and although the writ appeals were filed promptly, the representations of the petitioners were not decided for more than seven years from the date of filing of the initial writ petitions. Consequently, the petitioners again approached this Court seeking enforcement of the earlier directions. 14. Lastly, the petitioners submitted fresh representations asserting 12 that the paramedical course had been recognized and considered by various authorities and that appointments had been granted to similarly situated candidates. However, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, their representations remained undecided. They, therefore, claim entitlement to a decision on their representations so that their qualification may be treated as equivalent and they may be appointed as MPHW (M) under the State Government. 15. The sole ground on which the representations of the petitioners have been rejected is that the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government are prospective in nature and cannot be applied with retrospective effect. It has been contended by the respondent authorities that, for this reason, the petitioners’ qualification cannot be treated as equivalent to the qualification prescribed under the relevant Non-Clerical Paramedical Recruitment Rules, and consequently, the benefit sought by the petitioners by giving retrospective operation to the Rules cannot be extended to them. 16. Ms. Natasha Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have successfully completed a one-year paramedical training course, which, in substance and content, is equivalent to the essential qualification prescribed for the post of MPHW (M). It is contended that the nature of duties, functions, and responsibilities discharged by candidates trained under the paramedical course are identical and analogous to those 13 performed by MPHW (M), and that the petitioners have undergone requisite practical as well as theoretical training for discharging the very same work. 17. It is further argued by Ms. Khan that, despite being similarly situated in all material respects, the petitioners have been denied consideration for appointment solely on the ground of non- recognition of equivalency of their qualification, which is arbitrary and unjustified. She emphasized that once the petitioners possess the necessary training and competence for performing the duties attached to the post of MPHW (M), the respondent authorities are duty bound to consider their candidature by treating their qualification as equivalent to the prescribed qualification, namely that of Paramedical Health Worker. 18. Ms. Khan further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities in denying equivalency to the petitioners’ qualification, while extending similar benefits to other similarly placed candidates, amounts to hostile discrimination and unequal treatment, thereby offending the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that such differential treatment, without any reasonable classification or intelligible differentia, is wholly unsustainable in law and warrants interference by this Court. 19. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents, 14 vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the claims raised by the petitioners are wholly misconceived and not in accordance with law. It is argued that the rejection of the representations submitted by the petitioners is well-reasoned, justified, and legally sustainable, calling for no interference by this Court. 20. Mr. Pandey contended that the petitioners are seeking appointment to the post of MPHW (M) on the basis of a paramedical course, which cannot be accepted in view of the statutory recruitment framework governing the post. It was submitted that the Service Recruitment Rules, notified in the Gazette on 06.07.2013, clearly prescribe the eligibility criteria for the post of MPHW (M), namely that a candidate must have passed Class XII with Biology, must have undergone one year training as Multipurpose Health Worker from a recognized institution, and must be registered with the Chhattisgarh Paramedical Council. 21. It is further submitted by Mr. Pandey that the advertisement in question was issued in the year 2012, much prior to the coming into force of the Rules of 2013. Therefore, the said Recruitment Rules, having been enacted and notified on 06.07.2013, are prospective in operation and cannot be applied retrospectively to an advertisement issued earlier. On this ground alone, the petitioners’ claim for consideration of their qualification by applying the Rules of 2013 is legally untenable. 15 22. Mr. Pandey also submitted that the respondent authorities have uniformly decided several similar representations raised by other candidates on identical grounds, and the present writ petitions cannot be adjudicated differently so as to confer a special or inconsistent benefit upon the petitioners. It is emphasized that while rejecting the representations, the authorities have neither acted arbitrarily nor committed any illegality, and the decisions taken are strictly in accordance with the governing statutory rules. 23. It is lastly contended by Mr. Pandey that the degree or qualification obtained by the petitioners cannot be equated or treated as equivalent by relying upon the subsequent Recruitment Rules of 2013, as the said Rules operate only prospectively. Consequently, the benefit of the Rules of 2013 cannot be extended to an advertisement issued in the year 2012, and the claim of the petitioners seeking retrospective application of the said Rules is unsustainable in law. 24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record in all the connected writ petitions.. 25. From a careful perusal of the record, it clearly transpires that the Recruitment Rules in question came into force in the year 2013, upon their publication in the Gazette on 06.07.2013, and, by their very nature, are prospective in operation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said Rules were ever intended to 16 operate retrospectively. Admittedly, the courses undertaken by the petitioners were not recognized in the year 2012, when the Rules of 2013 had not yet come into force. 26. It is also undisputed that the advertisement dated 04.05.2012 was issued much prior to the promulgation of the Rules of 2013, and the eligibility criteria prescribed therein for appointment to the post of MPHW (M) were entirely different from those subsequently introduced by the Rules of 2013. At the time of issuance of the said advertisement, the qualifications and eligibility conditions introduced by the Rules of 2013 were neither in existence nor operative, and therefore, the same cannot be imported or applied retrospectively so as to confer any benefit upon the petitioners. 27. This Court had earlier examined the very same issue in detail in WPS No.2107/2012 and other connected matters, wherein the claims of similarly situated petitioners were categorically rejected. The matter was thereafter carried in writ appeals, wherein also the petitioners could not secure any substantive relief. The writ appeals were ultimately disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representations before the competent authorities. 28. Pursuant thereto, the representations so submitted were duly considered and rejected by the respondent authorities, specifically holding that the benefit of the subsequent Recruitment Rules which came into force on 06.07.2013 cannot be extended with 17 retrospective effect to appointments governed by the advertisement issued in the year 2012. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and another v. B.D. Singhal and others, (2021) 17 SCC 435, while dealing with the similar issue, has observed as follows :- “28. In State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd., Ranchi, (2023) 10 SCC 634, this court speaking through of one us (D Y Chandrachud J) elaborated on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which is grounded in fairness and reasonableness. Explaining that there is a legitimate expectation that the actions of the State are fair and reasonable, it was observed: “45. …The state must discard the colonial notion that it is a sovereign handing out doles at its will. Its policies give rise to legitimate expectations that the state will act according to what it puts forth in the public realm. In all its actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is an elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary state action which Article 14 of the Constitution adopts.” (emphasis supplied) 29. Since the enhancement of the age of superannuation is a ‘public function’ channelised by the provisions of the statute 18 and the service regulations, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to challenge the action of NOIDA. Though NOIDA sought the approval of the State government for the enhancement with ‘immediate effect’, it never intended or portrayed to have intended to give retrospective effect to the prospectively applicable Government order. The representation of NOIDA could not have given rise to a legitimate expectation since it was a mere recommendation which was subject to the approval of the State Government. Hence, the doctrine of legitimate expectation also finds no application to the facts of the present case” 30. Reverting to the facts of the present cases in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), it is quite vivid that the petitioners cannot claim any enforceable or vested right to seek appointment to the post of MPHW (M) by invoking the Recruitment Rules of 2013 with retrospective effect. 31. The advertisement pursuant to which the petitioners had applied was issued in the year 2012, at a point of time when the Rules of 2013 were not in existence, and the eligibility conditions prevailing on the date of advertisement alone governed the selection process. The subsequent framing of the Rules of 2013, which are expressly prospective in operation, cannot be relied upon to reopen or alter the eligibility criteria applicable to an earlier recruitment. 19 32. The plea of legitimate expectation or equitable consideration advanced by the petitioners is equally untenable. As authoritatively clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to compel the State to act contrary to statutory provisions, nor can it be pressed into service to confer retrospective operation upon rules which are, by their very nature, prospective. In the present case, there was no representation, assurance, or promise by the State that the Rules of 2013 would be applied retrospectively or that the qualifications possessed by the petitioners would be treated as equivalent for appointments governed by the advertisement issued in the year 2012. 33. This Court also finds no merit in the allegation of hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are identically situated with other candidates whose representations have been rejected on the same grounds, and the respondent authorities have applied the statutory rules uniformly and consistently. Such uniform application of law negates any charge of arbitrariness or unequal treatment. 34. In view of the settled legal position, the statutory framework governing the field, and the earlier adjudication by this Court as well as the Division Bench, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned rejection of the representations of the petitioners suffers from no illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of 20 India. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any legal right accruing in their favour so as to justify the grant of the reliefs claimed. 35. Consequently, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, all the writ petitions, i.e. WPS Nos.1953/2023, 5421/2023, 6059/2023, 6126/2023, 6223/2023, 6237/2023, 6303/2023, 6450/2023 and 7421/2023 filed by the petitioners, are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 10.12.2025 19.12.2025 ------ 19.12.2025