2026:JHHC:19174 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6426 of 2024 Ajay Kumar Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Late Baidya Nath Singh, resident of Flat No. 301, Shanti Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Road No.3, Singh More, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. …… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Rajbanshi Nagar, P.O. Bailey Road, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna, Bihar. 4. Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Rajbanshi Nagar, P.O. Bailey Road, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna, Bihar. 5. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, North Block, Central Secretariat, P.O. Central Secretariat, P.S. North Block, New Delhi. 6. Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, North Block, Central Secretariat, P.O. Central Secretariat, P.S. North Block, New Delhi. …… Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Sr. Advocate Mr. Siddhartha Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Shipra Shalini, Advocate For Union of India : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Radha Krishna Gupta, CGC For State of Jharkhand : Ms. Oishi Das, A.C. to A.G. For Intervenor : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Ms. Siddharth Jain, Advocate Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocate CAV on: 23/06/2026 Pronounced on:01/07/2026 1. Present writ petition was tagged with W.P.(S) No. 2565 of 2025 (Radheshyam Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and both the said writ petitions were heard together and Judgment was also reserved on 23rd June, 2026 in both the writ petitions. Apart from other prayers, a common prayer was made in both the writ petitions for quashing Letter bearing 2026:JHHC:19174 2 Memo No. 6160 dated 23.09.2024 issued by Respondent-Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand. 2. However, while going through the records of both the cases, I have noticed a significant difference in material facts of the said two cases and, hence, separate Judgment is being delivered in both the cases. Material distinguishing fact in both the cases is that in the case of present petitioner, his mutual allocation order is dated 06.09.2010 wherein a specific condition was inserted that seniority would be determined in terms of Letter No. 277 dated 03.02.2009 issued by Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. On the other hand, in the case of Radheshyam Prasad (Petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 2565 of 2025), his final cadre allocation, upon mutual allocation, took place on 21.06.2006 and no condition was imposed in said allocation order that the petitioner would be placed at the bottom of the seniority of his batch upon cadre allocation. In view of above, both the writ petitions have been segregated and separate Judgment is being delivered. 3. Following issues are involved in the present case: - (i) Whether Petitioner can claim seniority upon mutual cadre allocation, especially when in Mutual Allocation Order contained in Memo No. 10459 dated.06.09.2010, specific condition was inserted that Petitioner would not be entitled for claim of seniority? (ii) Whether facts and circumstances of the case is distinguishable with the facts and circumstances of the case of ‘State of Bihar Vs. Ravindra Prasad Singh & Ors: (2014) 3 JLJR 76 (HC), and is, in fact, covered by the Judgment rendered in the case of ‘Rajendra Pratap Sinha: (2009) 2 JLJR 750 (HC)? 4. By virtue of Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, existing State of Bihar was bifurcated and a new State i.e. State of Jharkhand was created with effect from 15.11.2000. In terms of Section 72(2) of Bihar Re- organization Act, 2000, Central Government was required to allocate cadre and post in various services of undivided State of Bihar. The Central Government framed certain schemes for division of cadre and after preparation of tentative allocation list and invitation of objections from employees, final allocation orders were issued. Thereafter, number of 2026:JHHC:19174 3 employees filed representations regarding their final cadre allocation, and, on 15.09.2004, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India wrote letter to Chief Secretary(s) of Government of Bihar and Government of Jharkhand indicating, inter alia, that representations made on behalf of certain categories of employees may be considered. In the said letter it was clearly stipulated that in respect of representations received from employees for mutual transfer/allocation of cadre with another consenting State personnel can be considered by the successor State Government on a broad consensus arrived between the State Governments either defining the terms and conditions of such consideration or by framing suitable rules for this purpose. 5. Consequent upon such direction, Special Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, vide Letter dated 21.05.2005, requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to entertain applications for mutual transfers on following conditions:- (i) Both employees belong to the same service and cadre. (ii) Both employees are of equivalent pay-scale and have the same level of seniority. (iii) Both employees have same marital status, so that the matters related to spouse regarding posting in the same State, conflict of decisions did not arise. (iv) Both employees have not exercised option earlier or their option has not been considered. (v) Request is being made for allocation of service in the State to which they are original inhabitant of that State. (vi) Due to illness or arise of any other casual reasons, allocation of service in another State has become necessary. 6. The State of Jharkhand, vide its Letter No. 2092 dated 01.07.2005, gave its consent to aforesaid policy decision of State of Bihar and, thus, both successor States agreed on the conditions of mutual cadre allocation, specified above, which did not contain any stipulation of the employees losing their seniority by placing them at the bottom of seniority of their batch and category. 7. However, from the facts pleaded, it transpires that subsequently both the successor States started taking contradictory stand regarding seniority of employees who have been allocated cadre on mutual transfer/allocation. In fact, Government of Jharkhand, vide its letter dated 2026:JHHC:19174 4 21.12.2006, informed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar that Government of Jharkhand has taken a decision to entertain applications seeking change in cadre allocation under the following conditions. (i) Such employees whose final cadre allocation has been done against their option. (ii) Cadre revision shall be considered only on the basis of availability of post. (iii) Claim for seniority as a result of cadre revision shall not be admissible i.e., he shall be placed as the most junior in his category/cadre. (iv) Till issue of this order or those cadres whose final allocation is awaited, facility of cadre revision shall be admissible only against representations received within four months of final allocation. Emphasis Supplied 8. On 26.04.2007, a High-Powered Committee meeting of State Re-organization Committee was held and in the said meeting, it was noted that since in earlier communication contained in Letter No. 3479 dated 21.05.2005, no condition of downgrading of seniority in cases of mutual transfer/allocation was provided, seniority of such employee would not be affected. However, State of Jharkhand, vide its Memo No. 4450 dated 19.07.2008, circulated its decision that in case of mutual allocation of cadre, employees will not be given benefit of their original seniority and would be treated as junior-most employees of their batch and category. 9. Subsequently, State of Bihar, vide Letter No. 277 dated 03.02.2009, also communicated to State of Jharkhand its decision in the case of mutual transfer/allocation of cadre by indicating, inter alia, that claim of seniority of such employees would not be entertained and such employees would be treated as junior-most employees of their batch and category. 10. Present Petitioner is an employee of Secretariat Services and was posted as an Assistant when final cadre allocation was issued vide Order No. 85/B dated 20.02.2007 by Central Government allocating the cadre of the petitioner to successor State of Bihar. 2026:JHHC:19174 5 11. Thereafter, the petitioner along with one Narendra Kumar Singh, Assistant, who was allocated State of Jharkhand, filed joint application for mutual cadre allocation, and, vide order dated 06.09.2010 passed by Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, petitioner was allocated the cadre of State of Jharkhand along with other employees, and petitioner’s serial no. was 3(ii) of the said order. 12. However, in the ‘Transfer/Allocation Order’ itself, it was stated that petitioner’s seniority would be governed in terms of the Letter issued by Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, being Letter No. 277 dated 03.02.2009, which provided, inter alia, that upon mutual transfer/ allocation of cadre, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority of his batch/category. 13. However, a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3844 of 2008 (Rajendra Pratap Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand) was filed before this Court, wherein said employee-Rajendra Pratap Sinha, who was already allocated Jharkhand Cadre on mutual transfer vide Memo No. 8148 dated 19.07.2006, challenged his subsequent degradation of his seniority in view of decision of State of Jharkhand contained in Memo No. 4450 dated 19.07.2008. Said writ petition was allowed by the Ld. Single Judge by taking into consideration provisions of Section 73 of Bihar Re- organization Act and it was held that seniority of said writ petitioner- Rajendra Pratap Sinha should not be altered. 14. In fact, in compliance of decision of Ld. Single Judge in the case of ‘Rajendra Pratap Sinha’ benefit of seniority was also extended to the petitioner and even promotion was given to him. Said Judgment of Ld. Single Judge in the case of Rajendra Pratap Sinha was followed in the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh and Ors.’ and similar benefit of seniority was extended. However, decision of Ld. Single Judge in the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’ was challenged by State of Bihar before the Division Bench of this Court, which has reversed the decision of Ld. Single Judge in the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’, detailed facts of which are mentioned hereinafter. 2026:JHHC:19174 6 15. In fact, dispute regarding seniority of the petitioner on mutual cadre allocation, again arose and State of Jharkhand vide Letter No. 6160 dated 23.09.2024 passed order giving retrospective application of its earlier order contained in Memo No. 4450 dated 19.07.2008, wherein decision was taken by the State Government to place an employee at the bottom of seniority list of his batch and category in case of mutual transfer. 16. The genesis of the said dispute arises out of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of ‘State of Bihar Vs. Ravindra Prasad Singh & ors, in L.P.A. No. 511 of 2009 and the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar and Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand (W.P.(S) No. 5134 of 2019). Accordingly, seniority of the petitioner was downgraded from Serial No. 703 to Serial No. 949-Kha in light of Letter No. 277 dated 03.02.2009 issued by Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar. 17. Aggrieved by aforesaid decision dated 23.09.2024 and down- gradation of his seniority from Serial No. 703 to Serial No. 949-Kha, present writ application has been filed. 18. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Ld. Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner vehemently assailed the impugned order dated 23.09.2024 issued by Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand by contending, inter alia that said impugned order is directly in the teeth of the order of Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in Aditya Narayn Roy Vs. State of Bihar, in C.W.J.C. No. 4756 of 2009, wherein the Division Bench, vide order dated 29.07.2016, was pleased to set aside the decision of State of Bihar contained in Letter No. 277 dated 03.02.2009, wherein condition was imposed that upon mutual allocation of cadre, the employee would be placed in bottom of the seniority of his batch/cadre. 19. It was vehemently submitted that Division Bench’s Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’ (supra) 2026:JHHC:19174 7 would not be applicable in the case of this petitioner, inasmuch as, although, in the case of this petitioner, at the time of allocation of cadre, condition was stipulated that petitioner would be put at the bottom of seniority of his batch/category, but the very basis of such condition being Letter No. 277 dated 03.02.2009 has already been set aside by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of ‘Aditya Narayan Roy’ (supra). 20. It was also submitted that, in fact, there are two conflicting Judgments of the Division Bench on the same issue i.e. Division Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of ‘Aditya Narayan Roy’ and Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’. It was submitted that subsequent decision of the Patna High Court dated 29th July, 2016 in the case of ‘Aditya Narayan Roy’ would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. It was further submitted that once the basis on which condition itself was stipulated in Mutual Allocation Order of the petitioner has been set aside, then, said condition would be deemed to be non-existent in allocation order of the Petitioner. It was further pointed out that petitioner’s seniority was already fixed by Respondent-State of Jharkhand and consequent to fixation of such seniority at Serial No. 702, petitioner was granted promotions, but now, in view of impugned decision dated 23.09.2024, seniority of the petitioner is sought to be downgraded from Serial No. 703 to Serial No. 949-Kha, which would not only adversely prejudice the petitioner in future prospect of promotions, but is also having effect on promotions already granted to Petitioner. 22. It was further submitted that decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of ‘Sanjay Kumar’ has been followed by State of Jharkhand without considering Division Bench’s Judgment in the case of ‘Aditya Narayan Roy’ (supra). 23. It was also submitted that State of Jharkhand, despite Division Bench Judgment in the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’ (supra), all along had taken stand that seniority of the employees is not required to be 2026:JHHC:19174 8 downgraded, but, suddenly, Respondent-State of Jharkhand has taken ‘U- turn’ and issued impugned Notification. 24. On the contrary Ms. Oishi Das, A.C. to A.G. vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that impugned decision of State of Jharkhand is based upon Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’ (supra) as well as consequential order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Sanjay Kumar’ (supra). By placing extensive reliance upon Judgment of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’ (supra), it was contended that the Division Bench in the said Judgment considered in detail the provisions of Sections 72 and 73 of The Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and held that benefit of proviso to Section 73 of the said Act of 2000 would not be available to an employee who has sought mutual transfer/allocation. 25. It was also submitted that although State of Jharkhand, consequent upon earlier decision of the Ld. Single Bench in the case of ‘Rajendra Pratap Sinha’ (supra), extended the benefit of seniority to all employees who were allocated cadre on mutual allocation basis, but Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Sanjay Kumar’ (supra) deprecated the stand taken by State of Jharkhand and, accordingly, State of Jharkhand, in compliance of the order of the Coordinate Bench including the order passed in contempt application, re-visited its decision in consonance with Division Bench Judgment in the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’ (supra) and impugned decision is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 26. I have carefully perused the pleadings made in the writ application including various notifications, guidelines, letters, etc. issued by Central Government, State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand regarding allocation of seniority in case of mutual transfer/allocation of cadre. 27. As noted above and under Section 72(2) of The Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, it was for the Central Government to allocate cadre and post in various services of undivided State of Bihar and said exercise was undertaken by it and final cadre allocations were issued. 2026:JHHC:19174 9 However, subsequent to final cadre allocation orders, several representations were filed by employees for change of their cadre either to the State of Bihar or State of Jharkhand and vice versa, and, Central Government vide communication dated 15th September, 2004 addressed to Chief Secretaries of both the successor States, laid down guidelines for consideration of such decision taken. In the said guidelines with respect to mutual transfer cases, it was specifically observed as under:- “A large number of representations have been received from personnel requesting for consideration of their mutual transfer with another consenting State Service personnel. Since the Central Government has already issued final allocation orders, it finds no reason to entertain such requests. However, it is open to the successor State Governments to consider requests of mutual transfer based on broad consensus arrived between the State Governments, inter alia, either defining the terms and conditions for such consideration or by framing suitable rules for this purpose.” 28. Consequent upon such guidelines, the State of Bihar, vide Letter No. 3479 dated 21.05.2005, laid down six conditions for entertaining applications for mutual transfer (already noted above) and none of said conditions stipulated that the employee would lose its seniority on such mutual transfer/allocation of cadre. Admittedly, State of Jharkhand vide Letter No. 2092 dated 1st July, 2005 gave its consent to aforesaid conditions for mutual transfer. 29. However, subsequently, the State of Jharkhand vide its letter dated 21.12.2006 informed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar that Government of Jharkhand has taken a decision to entertain application seeking change in cadre allocation, wherein it specified that as a result of cadre division, claim of seniority shall not be entertained and employee shall be placed as most junior in his category/cadre. Subsequently, State of Bihar also vide its Letter No. 277 dated 03.02.2009 imposed similar condition. 30. It is an admitted fact that at the time when this petitioner along with one Narendra Kumar applied for mutual transfer/allocation of cadre, aforesaid condition of State of Bihar was, admittedly, existing and vide 2026:JHHC:19174 10 order dated 06.09.2010 passed by Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, petitioner was allocated cadre of State of Jharkhand and condition was stipulated in the said order that petitioner’s seniority would be governed in terms of Letter No. 277 dated 03.02.2009 issued by State of Bihar. 31. As a matter of fact, this Court is of the opinion that the case of this petitioner is not governed by provisions of Section 73 of The Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000, which reads as under:- “73. Other provisions relating to services. – (1) Nothing in Section 72 shall be deemed to affect on or after the appointed day the operation of the provisions of Chapter I of Part XIV of the Constitution in relation to determination of the conditions of service of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Union or any State : Provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in the case of any person deemed to have been allocated to the State of Bihar or to the State of Jharkhand under Section 72 shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. (2) All services prior to the appointed day rendered by a person.— (a) If he is deemed to have been allocated to any State under Section 72, shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of that State; (b) if he is deemed to have been allocated to the Union in connection with the administration of the Jharkhand shall be deemed to have been rendered in connection with the affairs of the Union, for the purposes of the rules regulating his conditions of service. (3) The previous of Section 72, shall not apply in relation to members of any All India Service. 32. Proviso to Section 73(1) specifically stipulates that conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day in case of any person shall not be varied to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Central Government. 33. I have carefully perused the Division Bench decision in the case of ‘State of Bihar Vs. Ravindra Prasad Singh; (2014) 3 JLJR 76 (HC). In the said Judgment, it has been specifically noted that Government of Jharkhand, vide its letter dated 21.12.2006, informed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar that Government of Jharkhand has taken decision to entertain applications seeking change in cadre allocation with certain 2026:JHHC:19174 11 conditions which includes the condition of downgrading of seniority as most junior in his category/cadre. Para-5 of the said Judgment is quoted herein-under:- 5. In the light of letter dated 08.06.2006, the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 21.12.2006 informed the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar that the Government of Jharkhand has taken a decision to entertain the application seeking change in cadre allocation under the following conditions:- (i) Such employees whose final cadre allocation has been done against their option. (ii)Cadre revision shall be considered only on the basis of availability of post. (iii)Claim for seniority as a result of cadre revision shall not be admissible i.e., he shall be placed as the most junior in his category/cadre. (iv)Till issue of this order or those cadres whose final allocation is awaited, facility of cadre revision shall be admissible only against representations received within four months of final allocation.” 34. Further, from the facts of the said Judgment, it would be evident that in Notification dated 05.12.2007 pertaining to cadre allocation of said ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’ (issued after the decision of State of Jharkhand dated 21.12.2006) specific condition was incorporated that the case for seniority would not be considered. It is in the said background, the Division Bench in para-21 of said Judgment has held as under:- Bihar Reorganisation Act would have been available to the respondent No.1 only in the event he would have joined service under the Government of Bihar in compliance of cadre allocation order dated 13.09.2006 and in that event his service conditions could not have been altered, in any manner to his detriment. However, pursuant to letter dated 15.09.2004 of the Government of India, the order reviewing the cadre allocation on an application for mutual transfer on certain terms and conditions agreed upon by the respective States and implemented by the Nodal Department, was altogether a different transaction and the protection under proviso to Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act is not available to the employees who sought mutual transfer and whose requests have been accepted subject to condition that they would not claim seniority as per the final gradation list. The condition stipulating loss of seniority in order dated 05.12.2007 whereby the respondent No.1 was reallocated cadre in the State of Jharkhand cannot be said to be hit by provision under Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act. The condition stipulated in order dated 05.12.2007 is binding on the respondent No.1 and the learned single Judge clearly fell in error in holding that the respondent No.1 would be entitled for his seniority as per the final gradation list, even though such a prayer was not made in the writ petition.” (Emphasis Supplied) 35. In fact, the Division Bench, while considering the appeal filed by State of Bihar against the Judgment of ‘Rajendra Pratap Sinha’ (supra) in its order dated 31st October, 2023, vide Para-12, has specifically noted the distinction of facts between the two cases i.e. the case of ‘Ravindra Prasad Singh’ (supra) and ‘Rajendra Pratap Sinha’. In effect, if the ratio of the Judgment of both the aforesaid Division Benches is 2026:JHHC:19174 12 considered read with the Judgment of Coordinate Bench in the case of ‘Rajendra Pratap Sinha’, following ratio would emerge:- (i)Benefit of Proviso to Section 73 would be available to employees who sought mutual transfer and their request has been accepted without any condition that they would not claim seniority. (ii)Per contra, benefit of Proviso to Section 73 of the Bihar Reorganization Act would not be available to the employees whose mutual transfer requests were accepted with condition of degradation of seniority in terms of the agreement reached between the successor States at the relevant time. 36. In the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that benefit of first proviso to Section-73 would not be available to the petitioner, inasmuch as, at the relevant point of time of his mutual transfer/allocation of cadre, there was condition existing regarding down-gradation of seniority. 37. It is true that the very basis of insertion of condition in ‘Mutual Allocation Order’ of the petitioner has been set aside by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Patna, but the same cannot come to the rescue of this petitioner, as the petitioner, in the instant writ application, has not challenged the said condition inserted in its “Mutual Allocation Order” issued on 06.09.2010. Even otherwise, this Court is bound to follow Division Bench decision of Jharkhand High Court and not the Division Bench’s decision of High Court of Judicature at Patna, especially in circumstances where two contradictory views have been taken by both the Division Benches. 38. Further. if, the employee has consciously chosen to ask for revision in its cadre allocation being consensus of the decision, then prevalent for seeking such mutual allocation; then, said employee has already waived and acquisitioned its right to challenge such condition of mutual condition order. 39. This Court has also delivered another Judgment on the same issue in W.P.(S) No. 2565 of 2025 (Radheshyam Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand &Ors.) wherein it was found that at the time of allocation of cadre, no such condition of reduction of seniority was existing and even in 2026:JHHC:19174 13 “Mutual Allocation Order”, no such condition was stipulated and it is in that background that said writ petition was allowed and impugned order dated 23.09.2024 was set aside to a limited extent. 40. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, impugned order contained in Memo No. 6160 dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure-30), is quashed and set aside to the extent it applies the principle of down-gradation of seniority in all cases of mutual transfer/allocation, and, it is declared that condition of down-gradation of seniority would be applicable only in such cases where, in the mutual allocation order itself, condition was stipulated regarding down-gradation/loss of seniority at the bottom of seniority list of batch and category of the employees. 41. Since in the case of this petitioner, there was a specific condition stipulated in his “Mutual Allocation Order” that the Petitioner would be placed at the bottom of his seniority in his batch/cadre, no relief can be extended to the petitioner in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition, is hereby, dismissed. 42. Pending I.As., if any, shall stand disposed of and there shall be no order as to costs. (Deepak Roshan, J) Dated:01/07 /2026 Amardeep/ .A.F.R Uploaded on 03.07.2026