STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusAMIT SHRIVAS

46                     [2020]REPORTS
             SUPREME COURT    11 S.C.R. 46               [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A                STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
                                     v.
                              AMIT SHRIVAS
                       (Civil Appeal No. 8564 of 2015)
B                          SEPTEMBER 29, 2020
         [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
                    KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
           Service Law:
C          Appointment – Compassionate appointment – Claim for –
     Rejected on the ground that as per existing policy there was no
     provision for compassionate appointment, where Government
     Servant was getting salary from the work-charge/contingency fund
     – However, as per the policy, wife of the deceased employee was
     sanctioned compassionate grant of Rs. One Lakh – Writ Petition –
D
     Allowed by High Court holding that once the employee became
     permanent under the Pension Rules, the policy was not applicable
     and directed the department to consider the case of the claimant
     for compassionate appointment – Writ Appeal before Division Bench
     taking the plea that the deceased Government employee since was
E    not a regular employee, within meaning of r. 2(b) of Civil Service
     Conduct Rules, the claimant was not entitled to compassionate
     appointment – Dismissed by Division Bench of High Court – Appeal
     to Supreme Court – Held: An employee does not acquire status of
     regular employee upon having achieved the status of permanent
     employee – claimant not entitled to compassionate appointment –
F
     By a subsequent circular compassionate grant amount has been
     enhanced to Rs. Two Lakhs – In exercise of power u/Art. 142 of the
     Constitution, compassionate grant amount is enhanced from Rs. One
     Lakh to Rs. Two Lakhs – Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct
     Rules, 1965 – r. 2(b) – Constitution of India – Art. 142.
G          Allowing the appeal, the Court
           HELD: 1. There cannot be any inherent right to
     compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on
     certain criteria, especially to provide succor to a needy family.
     This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the
H
                                     46
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. AMIT SHRIVAS                      47


date of demise, unless a subsequent policy is made applicable         A
retrospectively. Since the demise of the late father of the
respondent, 11 years have passed and really speaking, the aspect
of providing succor to the family immediately does not survive.
[Paras 14 and 15][53-C-D]
      State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari &              B
      Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 545 : [2012] 7 SCR 1072; Indian
      Bank & Ors. v. Promila & Anr. (2020) 2 SCC 729 :
      [2020] 1 SCR 408 – relied on.
      2.1 There is distinction between a work-charged employee,
a permanent employee and a regular employee. The late father          C
of the respondent was undoubtedly a work-charged employee
and it is nobody’s case that he has not been paid out of work-
charged/contingency fund. He attained the status of a permanent
employee on account of having completed 15 years of service,
which entitled him to certain benefits including pension and
krammonati. This will, however, not ipso facto give him the status    D
of a regular employee. [Para 16][53-F-G]
      2.2. Under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, employees can be classified as
permanent, permanent seasonal, probationers, badlis,
apprentices, temporary and fixed-term employment employees.           E
A work-charged contingency employee can also be classified
under any of the aforementioned categories and under the said
Standing Orders, the classification as permanent can be granted
even on the completion of 6 months service in a clear vacancy. A
‘permanent’ classification does not amount to regularisation.         F
[Paras 17 and 18][54-A-B-C]
      Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC
      436 : [2016] 9 SCR 141 – relied on.
      2.3 An employee does not acquire the status of a regular
employee upon having achieved the status of a permanent               G
employee in service. Thus, the classification of the late father of
the respondent as a permanent employee, and the distinction
between a ‘permanent’ status and a ‘regular’ status appears to
have been lost sight of in the impugned judgments. [Paras 20
and 21][55-E, F]
                                                                      H
48            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A           3.1 The family of the late employee has already been paid
     the entitlement as per applicable policy. The respondent is not
     entitled to any relief. However, there is a subsequent development
     arising from certain additional documents placed on record
     pertaining to the amendment to the policy of 18.8.2008 vide
     Circular dated 29.9.2014. In terms of this Circular, the
B
     compassionate grant amount was increased from Rs. 1,00,000/-
     to Rs. 2,00,000/-. [Paras 24 and 25][56-F-H; 57-A]
            3.2 Another Circular was issued on 31.8.2016, through
     which, a decision was taken that the dependents of deceased
     employees drawing a salary from the work-charged/contingency
C    fund would be entitled to compassionate appointment, but it was
     clarified vide Circular dated 21.3.2017 that pending cases before
     the date of the 31.8.2016 Circular would be decided only in terms
     of the amended Policy dated 29.9.2014. That being the position,
     this last Circular also does not come to the aid of the respondent
D    as it would amount to making the policy retrospectively applicable,
     while the Circular says to the contrary. [Para 25][57-A-B]
            3.3 The Circular dated 21.3.2017 records that pending
     cases will be decided in accordance with the directions issued
     for compassionate appointment on 29.9.2014. The present case
E    is really not a pending case before the authority, but a pending lis
     before this Court. Thus, in exercise of powers under Article 142
     of the Constitution of India, to do complete justice between the
     parties, the amount from Rs. 1,00,000/- is increased to
     Rs. 2,00,000/-. [Paras 27 and 28][57-E-F]

F          Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Nirval
           Singh (2019) 6 SCC 774 : [2019] 7 SCR 905 – relied
           on.
                        CASE LAW REFERENCE
     [2012] 7 SCR 1072              relied on              Para 14
G
     [2016] 9 SCR 141               relied on              Para 18
     [2020] 1 SCR 408               relied on              Para 23
     [2019] 7 SCR 905               relied on              Para 28

H
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. AMIT SHRIVAS                             49


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8564                    A
of 2015.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2014 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Appeal no. 583 of 2013.
     Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Arjun Garg, Ms. Shrutika Garg, Ronak
Karanpuria, Advs. for the appearing parties.                                 B

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
      1. The respondent raises a claim of entitlement to compassionate
appointment on account of the demise of his father late Shri Ranglal         C
Shrivas, who was working as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department,
Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, since 6.6.1984 till he passed away on
11.12.2009, i.e., over a period of almost 23 years.
       2. The claim of the respondent was predicated on the nature of
employment of his late father, who was initially appointed as a work-        D
charged employee. On 12.3.1987, he was made permanent and was
paid salary at a regular pay-scale. The benefits of revision of pay and
krammonati (promotion) were also extended to him from time to time.
On the demise of late Shri Ranglal Shrivas, he left behind an ailing wife,
a son (i.e., the respondent herein) and three daughters and is stated to
                                                                             E
have been the sole breadwinner for his family. The family, thus, faced
undue economic hardship. A Pension Payment Order (‘PPO’) under
the Madhya Pradesh Civil Pension Rules, 1976 was issued in favour of
the family on account of his having worked from 12.3.1987 to 11.12.2009
on the basis of his last pay-scale and grade pay. In view of the economic
hardship, the respondent filed an application seeking the benefit of         F
compassionate appointment.
       3. The request of compassionate appointment was, however,
rejected by the third appellant vide order dated 19.8.2010. Reliance was
placed on the Policy in force for compassionate appointment dated
18.8.2008, issued by the General Administration Department Ministry,         G
Madhya Pradesh Government. This policy pertains to when a
Government servant dies while in service, and if such an employee is
earning a salary from the work-charge/contingency fund at the time of
his/her demise, then there was no provision for the grant of such
appointment. In this behalf, reliance was placed on Clause 12.1 of the
                                                                             H
50            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A    Policy, which provided for a compassionate grant of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
     nominated dependent of such an employee, and in this case, the same
     was sanctioned to the wife of the deceased. It would be appropriate to
     reproduce the relevant clause as under:
           “12. Provisions for work charge/contingency and daily wager
B          employees
           12.1 When employees receiving salary from work charge/
           contingency fund and daily wager employee die, they would not
           be eligible for the compassionate appointment; however Rs.1 lakh
           in one installment in the name of compassionate grant shall be
C          given to the dependent member of the family nominated by them.
           The amount of gratuity shall not be included in it. The payment of
           this amount shall be given from the salary head under the head of
           work charge/contingency of the concerned department.”
             4. The respondent, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated
D    19.8.2010, filed WP No. 3542/2012 before the High Court of Madhya
     Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. The Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and
     Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred
     to as the ‘Pension Rules’), more specifically Rule 2(c), was relied upon.
     This Rule stipulates that any contingency paid employee or work-charged
     employee who has completed 15 years or more of service on or after
E    1.1.1974, as a permanent employee. It would be relevant to reproduce
     the definition of work-charged employee and permanent employee as
     set out in Rules 2(b) & 2(c) of the Pension Rules as under:
           “2. Definitions. — In these rules, unless the context otherwise
           requires, -
F
            xxxx              xxxx             xxxx             xxxx
           xxxx
           (b) “Work-Charged employee” means a person employed upon
           the actual execution, as distinct from general supervision of a
           specified work or upon subordinate supervision of the departmental
G
           labour, store, running and repairs of electrical equipment and
           machinery in connection with such work, excluding the daily paid
           labour and muster-roll employee employed on the work;
           (c) “Permanent employee” means a contingency paid employee
           or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of
H          service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974.”
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. AMIT SHRIVAS                               51
               [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

       5. It is not in dispute that the father of the respondent had             A
completed more than 15 years of service at the time of his demise and
was, thus, a permanent employee. Thus, the respondent claimed
entitlement to compassionate appointment being eligible for a Class IV
post as per Policy of 18.8.2008 and sought the quashing of the impugned
decision dated 19.8.2010.
                                                                                 B
       6. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants on the ground
that the father of the respondent had been appointed on contingency
basis as per requirement of work as a driver. Such appointment was
with the condition that his service may be terminated with one month’s
notice and that his salary would be released from the contingency fund.
In this behalf reliance was placed on his appointment order dated                C
5.6.1987, but strangely neither of the parties placed any appointment
letter/order on record. The factum of the wife of the deceased having
already received Rs. 1,00,000/- as relief in terms of the Policy was
emphasised.
       7. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of           D
the High Court vide order dated 19.7.2013, relying upon an earlier
judgment dealing with the issue of an employee, who had been serving
for more than 15 years and who was, thus, found to qualify for the status
of a permanent employee. This relied upon order was sustained in a writ
appeal and an SLP against this was also dismissed.1 On the issue of the          E
applicability of Clause 12.1 of the Policy reproduced hereinabove, it was
opined that the same would apply to such employees who had not attained
permanency, i.e., once an employee becomes permanent under the
Pension Rules, Clause 12.1 was held as inapplicable for compassionate
appointment.
                                                                                 F
       8. The fact that the appellants had even granted krammonati to
the late father of the respondent was also taken as the supportive
reasoning. The appellants were directed to consider the case of the
respondent for compassionate appointment in terms thereof. Aggrieved
by the same, the appellants preferred Writ Appeal No. 583/2013, inter
alia, on the ground that the respondent was not entitled to compassionate        G
appointment and he was not a regular Government employee within the
meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service Conduct
Rules, 1965, which reads as under:
1
 Shahjad Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (WP No. 2731/2010, WA No. 110/
2013 and SLP (C) No. 5859/2014)                                                  H
52            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A          “2. Definitions. - In these rules, unless the context otherwise
           requires,-
           xxxx       xxxx    xxxx     xxxx    xxxx
           (b) “Government servant” means any person appointed to any
           civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of
B          Madhya Pradesh.
           Explanation. - A Government servant whose services are placed
           at the disposal of a company, corporation, organisation or local
           authority by the Government shall, for the purpose of these rules,
           be deemed to be a Government servant serving under the
C          Government notwithstanding that his salary is drawn from sources
           other than from the Consolidated Fund of the State.”
           9. The emphasis of the appellants was also on the principle that a
     compassionate appointment is not an inherent right but a prerogative of
     the State, which can only be granted as per the concerned policy
D    formulated and enforced at the relevant time. Since Clause 12.1 of the
     Policy did not provide for compassionate appointment to work-charge/
     contingency fund and daily wager employees, the monetary benefit as
     admissible therein had already been granted. The difference between a
     regular and a permanent employee was emphasised and additionally, it
E    was pleaded that even the Rs. 1,00,000/- paid had not been directed to
     be refunded.
           10. The writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the
     High Court vide impugned order dated 2.1.2014, primarily predicated on
     the reasoning that the late father of the respondent was a permanent
F    employee as per the Pension Rules. Insofar as grant of amount of
     Rs. 1,00,000/- was concerned, it was directed to be returned to the
     appellants in the event of the respondent gaining compassionate
     appointment.
           11. It appears that the appellants were in the process of filing an
     SLP and, thus, on 12.2.2014, appellant No. 3 accepted the respondent’s
G
     claim for compassionate appointment, but subject to the conditions that
     the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- should be returned, that such appointment
     would be dependent on the availability of a vacancy/post, that the posting
     offered be compulsorily accepted, and lastly, if an SLP/appeal is filed,
     then the outcome of the same will be binding. The SLP was filed on
H    12.7.2014 and after condonation of delay, notice was issued and the
      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. AMIT SHRIVAS                             53
                 [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

operation of the impugned judgment was stayed vide order dated                   A
6.2.2015. Leave was granted on 12.10.2015 and the interim order was
made absolute. Thus, till date the respondent has not got the benefit of
compassionate appointment.
          12. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
       13. In our opinion, the only issue which has to be examined is            B
whether the late father of the respondent who admittedly was employed
as a work-charged/contingency employee in the Tribal Welfare
Department was entitled to the compassionate appointment as per the
existing policy on the date of his demise.
       14. It is trite to say that there cannot be any inherent right to         C
compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria,
especially to provide succor to a needy family. This has to be in terms of
the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent
policy is made applicable retrospectively.2
       15. Insofar as providing succor is concerned, unfortunately, since        D
the demise of the late father of the respondent, 11 years have passed
and really speaking, the aspect of providing succor to the family
immediately does not survive. We have still examined the matter in the
conspectus of the applicable policy. It is not in question that the Policy
prevailing was one dated 18.8.2008. Clause 12.1 clearly proscribes work-         E
charge/contingency fund and daily wager employees from compassionate
appointment. The gravamen of the submission of the respondent is based
on the classification of his late father as a permanent employee on account
of having worked for more than 15 years and the consequent regularisation
of his service.
                                                                                 F
       16. In our view, the aforesaid plea misses the point of distinction
between a work-charged employee, a permanent employee and a regular
employee. The late father of the respondent was undoubtedly a work-
charged employee and it is nobody’s case that he has not been paid out
of work-charged/contingency fund. He attained the status of a permanent
employee on account of having completed 15 years of service, which               G
entitled him to certain benefits including pension and krammonati. This
will, however, not ipso facto give him the status of a regular employee.


2
    State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Anr., (2012) 9 SCC 545    H
54               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A           17. In the aforesaid behalf, an analogy can be drawn with the
     Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963,
     under which employees can be classified as permanent, permanent
     seasonal, probationers, badlis, apprentices, temporary and fixed-term
     employment employees. A work-charged contingency employee can also
     be classified under any of the aforementioned categories and under the
B
     said Standing Orders, the classification as permanent can be granted
     even on the completion of 6 months service in a clear vacancy.
            18. We are not required to labour much on the aforesaid issue and
     really speaking this issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment
     of this Court in Ram Naresh Rawat v. Ashwini Ray & Ors.,3 which
C    opined that a ‘permanent’ classification does not amount to regularisation.
     The case dealt with the aforesaid Standing Orders and it has been observed
     in paras 24, 26 & 27 as under:
              “24. It is, thus, somewhat puzzling as to whether the employee, on
              getting the designation of “permanent employee” can be treated
D             as “regular” employee. This answer does not flow from the reading
              of the Standing Orders Act and Rules. In common parlance,
              normally, a person who is known as “permanent employee” would
              be treated as a regular employee but it does not appear to be
              exactly that kind of situation in the instant case when we find that
E             merely after completing six months’ service an employee gets
              right to be treated as “permanent employee”. Moreover, this Court
              has, as would be noticed now, drawn a distinction between
              “permanent employee” and “regular employee”.
              xxxx          xxxx   xxxx   xxxx    xxxx
F             26. From the aforesaid, it follows that though a “permanent
              employee” has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the
              same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-
              scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service
              which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale.
G             27. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the
              contentions raised by the petitioners in these contempt petitions.
              We are conscious of the fact that in some cases, on earlier
              occasions, the State Government while fixing the pay scale, granted

     3
H        (2017) 3 SCC 436
  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. AMIT SHRIVAS                              55
             [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

      increments as well. However, if some persons are given the benefit      A
      wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief. It
      is trite that right to equality under Article 14 is not in negative
      terms (See Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Anr. v.
      T.K. Suryanarayan & Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 766]”
       19. The conclusion to be drawn from the aforesaid is that attaining    B
the status of permanent employee would entitle one only to a minimum
of the pay-scale without any increments. It is this aspect which was
sought to be emphasised by learned counsel for the respondent to contend
that this would not apply, because in the present case, krammonati and
increments were given. However, we may note that in the order dated
7.2.2002 granting the benefit of monetary krammonati to employees,            C
including the respondent’s father, it was specified that the same would
not affect the posts of such employees.
       20. The moot point, thus, is that having been granted increments,
could a person be said to have reached the status of a regular employee?
In order to answer this question, we may note that while considering this     D
aspect in the aforesaid judgment, it was specifically opined that even “if
some persons are given the benefit wrongly, that cannot form the
basis of claiming the same relief. It is trite that right to equality
under Article 14 is not in the negative terms.” We say so, not with the
objective of giving a licence to the appellants to withdraw any of the        E
benefits, which are already granted, and we make this unequivocally
clear. However, we cannot at the same time make a conclusion that the
status acquired is that of a regular employee upon having achieved the
status of a permanent employee in service.
       21. Thus, the classification of the late father of the respondent as   F
a permanent employee, and this distinction between a ‘permanent’ status
and a ‘regular’ status appears to have been lost sight of in the impugned
judgments.
       22. We may also notice the reliance placed by learned counsel for
the respondent on certain other cases where orders similar in nature          G
were passed by the High Court and an SLP against one of these orders
was dismissed, but then we have already observed that this will not give
a right for perpetuating something which is not permissible in law.


                                                                              H
56               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A          23. We had the occasion of examining the issue of compassion
     appointment in a recent judgment in Indian Bank & Ors. v. Promila &
     Anr.4 We may usefully refer to paras 3, 4, & 5 as under:
              “3. There has been some confusion as to the scheme applicable
              and, thus, this Court directed the scheme prevalent, on the date of
B             the death, to be placed before this Court for consideration, as the
              High Court appears to have dealt with a scheme which was of a
              subsequent date. The need for this also arose on account of the
              legal position being settled by the judgment of this Court in Canara
              Bank & Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, qua what
              would be the cut-off date for application of such scheme.
C
              4. It is trite to emphasise, based on numerous judicial
              pronouncements of this Court, that compassionate appointment is
              not an alternative to the normal course of appointment, and that
              there is no inherent right to seek compassionate appointment. The
              objective is only to provide solace and succour to the family in
D             difficult times and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time
              when the employee passes away.
              5. An aspect examined by this judgment is as to whether a claim
              for compassionate employment under a scheme of a particular
              year could be decided based on a subsequent scheme that came
E             into force much after the claim. The answer to this has been
              emphatically in the negative. It has also been observed that the
              grant of family pension and payment of terminal benefits cannot
              be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance.
              The crucial aspect is to turn to the scheme itself to consider as to
F             what are the provisions made in the scheme for such
              compassionate appointment.”
            24. We are, thus, unable to give any relief to the respondent, much
     as we would have liked under the circumstances, but are constrained by
     the legal position. The family of the late employee has already been paid
G    the entitlement as per applicable policy.
           25. We may, however, notice a subsequent development arising
     from certain additional documents placed on record pertaining to the
     amendment to the policy of 18.8.2008 vide Circular dated 29.9.2014. In
     terms of this Circular, the compassionate grant amount was increased
H    4
         (2020) 2 SCC 729
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. AMIT SHRIVAS                               57
                [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Another Circular was issued on             A
31.8.2016, through which, a decision was taken that the dependents of
deceased employees drawing a salary from the work-charged/contingency
fund would be entitled to compassionate appointment, but it was clarified
vide Circular dated 21.3.2017 that pending cases before the date of the
31.8.2016 Circular would be decided only in terms of the amended Policy
                                                                                  B
dated 29.9.2014. That being the position, this last Circular also does not
come to the aid of the respondent as it would amount to making the
policy retrospectively applicable, while the Circular says to the contrary.
       26. We, however, are of the view that we can provide some succor
to the respondent in view of the Circular dated 21.3.2017, the relevant
portion of which reads as under:                                                  C

         “2. In this regard, it is clarified that the compassionate appointment
         for the employees of Workcharge and Contingency Fund is in
         force also w.e.f. 31.08.2016. And the cases pending before this
         date, will be decided only in accordance with the directions issued
         for compassionate appointment on 29.09.2014, i.e., they will be          D
         eligible only for compassionate grant and not the compassionate
         appointment. The proceedings be ensured accordingly.”
      27. The aforesaid Circular records that pending cases will be
decided in accordance with the directions issued for compassionate
appointment on 29.9.2014. The present case is really not a pending case           E
before the authority, but a pending lis before this Court.
      28. We are, thus, of the view that it would be appropriate to use
our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete
justice between the parties by increasing the amount from
Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- as aforesaid. We, in fact, adopted a             F
similar approach in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors.
v. Nirval Singh.5
       29. It appears from the documents on record that possibly a sum
of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited by the respondent with the State Bank
of India in an interest-bearing deposit in 2016, and the amount would             G
possibly be lying in the same deposit. This would have been pursuant to
the impugned order. We, thus, direct that this FDR be released to the
respondent and that this amount, along with interest which would accrue
to the benefit of the respondent, apart from the additional amount of Rs.
5
    (2019) 6 SCC 774                                                              H
58             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 11 S.C.R.


A    1,00,000/-, we have found as payable to the respondent which should be
     so paid within a period of two (2) months from today, failing which it will
     carry interest @ 12 per cent per annum (simple interest) till the date of
     payment.
            30. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the parties to bear
B    their own costs.


     Kalpana K. Tripathy                                          Appeal allowed.



C




D




E




F




G




H