Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 959 (BOM)

Prabhat Kumar Titus v. Western Coalfields Limited

2021-06-30

ANIL S KILOR, SUNIL B.SHUKRE

body2021
JUDGMENT Anil S. Kilor, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner by way of present petition has approached to this Court questioning the correctness of the 'Reasoned Order' dated 2nd February, 2021 issued by the Colliery Manager, MKD-I, OCM of Respondent-WCL, thereby informing the petitioner that his application for correction of date of birth cannot be entertained. 4. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: 4.1. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 as 'Badli Loader' in the respondent-WCL. Though, his date of birth in Matriculation Certificate reflects as 6th December, 1961, it was recorded as 1st July, 1961 in the Form 'B; maintained by the respondents. 4.2. The petitioner had thereafter on 28th November, 1992 cleared an examination for the post of 'Sirdar' and at that point of time his date of birth was recorded as 6th December, 1961. 4.3. The petitioner, thereafter, was transfered from Kanhan area to Umrer area, and at that moment his date of birth was recorded as 6th December, 1961. 4.4. The petitioner had cleared the examination for the post of 'Overman' on 3rd July, 2008 and while joining as 'Overman', his date of birth was recorded as 6th December, 1961. 4.5. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as 'Senior Overman' on 29th September, 2017, and since then he is working as 'Senior Overman'. 4.6. On 15th September, 2011, the Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Umrer published a notice on the notice board stating that as per the direction issued by the General Manager (Industrial Relation), the objections regarding date of birth should be submitted within the scheduled date mentioned in the notice. 4.7 Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his objections/representations on 7th October 2011, pointing out the clerical mistake committed in recording of his date of birth as 1st July, 1961, while as per Matriculation Certificate it should be 6th December, 1961. The petitioner had also enclosed the copy of 'Matriculation Certificate' alongwith his objection / representation in support of his request. 4.8. Thereupon a notice was published by Manager (Personnel), Umrer Sub Area, on the notice board giving particulars of the employees who had raised objections. The petitioner had also enclosed the copy of 'Matriculation Certificate' alongwith his objection / representation in support of his request. 4.8. Thereupon a notice was published by Manager (Personnel), Umrer Sub Area, on the notice board giving particulars of the employees who had raised objections. In the said list the name of the petitioner appears at serial number 6, and against the name of the petitioner there was an endorsement that, the case of the petitioner will be examined separately on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. 4.9. Thereafter, the date of birth of the petitioner was got verified from the Higher Secondary Board and which ultimately found as correct. Accordingly, Umrer Sub Area, Colliery Manager forwarded the case of the petitioner for correction of date of birth to the Sub-Area Level Committee who in turn, has forwarded it with positive recommendation to the Area Committee. Consequently, the Area Committee who has also recommended for correction of date of birth of the petitioner. 4.10. However, as the petitioner did not receive any communication either rejecting or accepting his request for change of date of birth, he made a representation on 1st July, 2019, requesting the respondents to take decision on his representation dated 7th October, 2011. 4.11. On 30th June, 2020, the petitioner received a 'notice of retirement' wherein, considering date of birth of the petitioner as 1st July, 1961, the date of retirement was informed as 30th June, 2020. The petitioner thereupon again made a representation for reconsideration of his request for correction of his date of birth as 6th December, 1961, vide representation dated 7th July, 2020. 4.12. However, when the petitioner found that the respondents are not taking any decision on his application, he filed a writ petition, namely Writ Petition No. 2195 of 2020 before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 14th January, 2021 on a statement made by the respondents that they will pass a fresh order in respect of the application of the petitioner for change of date of birth. 4.13. Now, in pursuance thereof the respondents, issued impugned 'Reasoned Order' dated 2nd February 2021, rejecting the request of the petitioner made vide application dated 7th October, 2011, for correction of date of birth. Hence, this petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. 4.13. Now, in pursuance thereof the respondents, issued impugned 'Reasoned Order' dated 2nd February 2021, rejecting the request of the petitioner made vide application dated 7th October, 2011, for correction of date of birth. Hence, this petition. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. Shri Sudame, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner immediately on receiving knowledge about recording of wrong date of birth, and on publication of notice by the respondents, calling objections as regard to date of birth, submitted his objection/representation on 7th October, 2011 alongwith Matriculation Certificate, which contained date of birth of the petitioner as 6th December, 1961. It is submitted that despite the same, the application was not decided for about 10 years and petitioner was required to approach to this Court by filing writ petition no. 2195 of 2020. He, therefore, submits that the respondents have acted contrary to the interest of the petitioner and the implementation instruction no. 76. 6.1. He submits that after submitting objection for correction of date of birth, the respondents initiated the process for verification of correctness of the claim of the petitioner and on satisfaction that the claim of the petitioner is valid, the authorities namely the Sub-Area Level Committee and the Area Committee had favourably recommended for change of date of birth of the petitioner. However, on frivolous reasons the request of the petitioner for change of date of birth came to be turned down. 6.2. Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that after transfer of the petitioner from Kanhan Area to Umrer his date of birth was recorded as 6th December, 1961. Similarly, after clearing examination for the post of 'Sirdar' and 'Overman', the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 6th December, 1961. He also points out that after joining the post of promotion i.e. 'Senior Overman', his date of birth was recorded as 6th December, 1961 in Form "B". He, therefore, submits that except Form "B" which was filled in by a clerk of office of Mine Manager at the time of joining duties in the year 1984, other official record supports the claim of the petitioner. 6.3. He, therefore, submits that except Form "B" which was filled in by a clerk of office of Mine Manager at the time of joining duties in the year 1984, other official record supports the claim of the petitioner. 6.3. Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the Employment Exchange Registration Card issued by the Secretariat Employment and Training, Madhya Pradesh, which contained the date of birth of the petitioner as 6th December, 1961. He further submits that the petitioner was called for interview through Employment Exchange and he was asked to submit the 'Registration Card' of Employment Exchange at the time of interview as per the condition stipulated in the interview call letter, issued to the petitioner by the respondents. 6.4 Further it is submitted that, it is not the case of the respondents that the Matriculation Certificate of the petitioner containing the date of birth as 6th December, 1961, is dubious or not genuine. Thus, he submits that denial to correct the date of birth of the petitioner in service record, is arbitrary. 6.5. Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the implementation instruction (II) no. 76 which came into existence in the year 1988, when the petitioner was in service, permits the respondents to review and determine the date of birth in respect of existing employees. It is submitted that as per the II No.76(B)(i)(a) in case of the existing employee Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by the recognized Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate issued by the Board of Education and/or Department of Public Instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct, provided they were issued by the said Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment. It is submitted that in this matter, the Matriculation Certificate which was issued prior to the date of appointment of the petitioner is valid for review and determination of date of birth of the petitioner. 6.6. It is further pointed out that as per II no. 76 where there is no variation in records, such case will not be re-opened, unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner falls in the category of glaring and apparent wrong entry. 6.7. 76 where there is no variation in records, such case will not be re-opened, unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the Management. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner falls in the category of glaring and apparent wrong entry. 6.7. Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570 , in support of his contentions. 7. On the other hand, Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objection to the main-tainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy available by way of Central Government Industrial Tribunal and therefore, the present petitioner is not maintainable. 7.1. Learned counsel for the respondents further opposes the petition on the ground of delay and laches and submits that the petitioner has not taken any steps for last 30 years for correction of date of birth and at the fag end of his service, he is seeking correction of date of birth. 7.2. Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the respondents submits that, the communication relied upon by the petitioner to show that the Sub Area Level Committee or Area Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for correction of death of birth, cannot be relied upon as the said recommendations are flawed and could not have issued in view of II No.76. 7.3. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 when the II No.37 was in force, and which was replaced by II No.76 on 25th April, 1988. Because the petitioner did not raise any objection as to correction of date of birth before 25th April, 1988, the case of the petitioner was treated as 'undisputed case', which cannot be reviewed or re-determined. 7.4. It is submitted that the respondents after considering the II No.76 and also considering the judgment in the case of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.8827 of 2011, rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for correction of date of birth. 7.5. Shri Ghare, learned counsel for respondents in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Division Bench of this Court. 7.5. Shri Ghare, learned counsel for respondents in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Division Bench of this Court. i. Satishkumar S/o Hardayal Pashine Vrs. Western Coalfields Ltd., and others in Writ Petition No. 2289 of 1998 delivered on 19th September, 2016. ii. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others Vrs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 . iii. Kapil Deo S/o Ram Naresh Shahi Vrs. Chief General Manager, Nagpur Area, Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 3528 of 2015 delivered on 18th July, 2017. iv. Bhola Matru Harde, Nagpur Vrs. Chief General Manager, Nagpur Area, Nagpur and another in Writ Petition No. 3850 of 2017 delivered on 19th January, 2018; v. Mandhata Ram Suresh Ram Vrs. Dy. General Manager (M)/Sub Area Manager and another in Writ Petition No. 2113 of 2019 delivered on 23rd July, 2019. 8. To consider the rival contentions of the parties, we have carefully perused the record and also gone through the relevant judgments. 9. In this matter on 19th March, 2021, this Court has issued notice for final disposal and on 20th April, 2021 interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner on a condition that in case the petition is dismissed, the petitioner shall refund the salary which would be paid to him from 1st July, 2021 and onward. 10. The respondents filed their affidavits-in-reply, opposing prayers made in the petition. After going through the petition and the reply, it is revealed that the following facts have not been disputed by the respondents: a) In the matriculation Certificate of the petitioner, issued on 23rd June, 1981 by the Higher Secondary Board, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 6th December, 1961. b) In the Registration Card issued to the petitioner by the Employment Exchange, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 6th December, 1961. c) The petitioner was called for interview through Employment Exchange and he was asked to submit his Registration Card issued by the Employment Exchange at the time of interview as per the condition stipulated in the interview call letter issued by the respondents. d) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and in the 'B' Form filled in by a Clerk of Mine Manager, he had recorded the date of birth as 01st July, 1961. d) The petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and in the 'B' Form filled in by a Clerk of Mine Manager, he had recorded the date of birth as 01st July, 1961. e) Though the thumb impression of the petitioner was obtained on the said "B" Form, the petitioner was totally unaware that the wrong date of birth was recorded. f) On 15th September, 2011, the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) of Umrer Area published a notice and thereby called objections as regards date of birth of the existing employees. g) The petitioner preferred an objection/representation on 7th October, 2011, pointing out that as per the Matriculation Certificate, the correct date of birth is 6th December, 1961 and not 1st July, 1961 as recorded at the time of entry of the petitioner in service. h) The notice was published by the Manager (Personnel) on the notice board giving particulars of the employees who had raised objections and in the said list the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No.6 and against the name of the petitioner, there was an endorsement that the case of the petitioner will be examined separately on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. i) The petitioner's matriculation certificate was got verified by the respondent No.4 through the Higher Secondary Board, Bhopal, Madha Pradesh. j) At the time of joining of the petitioner as 'Sirdar' and 'Senior Overman', the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 6th December, 1961. k) The case of the petitioner was recommended by the Sub-Area Level Committee and the Area Committee for correction of date of birth. l) The respondents rejected the request made by the petitioner for correction of his date of birth, vide application dated 7th October, 2011, i.e. after about nine years and four months, vide impugned 'Reasoned Order' dated 2nd February, 2021. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop we proceed to consider the contention of the respective parties. 12. As regards the maintainability of the present petition, it is a well settled law that though the existence of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, but it is a circumstance which the Court takes into consideration while exercising its power of issuing writs. 11. In the aforesaid backdrop we proceed to consider the contention of the respective parties. 12. As regards the maintainability of the present petition, it is a well settled law that though the existence of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar, but it is a circumstance which the Court takes into consideration while exercising its power of issuing writs. In this case looking to the undisputed facts referred above, such factual situation does not inhibit us from entertaining the present writ petition though a suitable efficacious alternate remedy may be available as suggested by the respondents. 13. Moreover, looking to the duties and responsibility of 'Overman', enumerated in the notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 27th November, 2017, it is apparently clear that such duties and responsibilities are Supervisory in nature. However, without going into the aspect of whether the duties are supervisory or not, in view of discussion made in foregoing paragraph, we are of the opinion that on the ground of alternate remedy this petition cannot be thrown out. Hence, we proceed further to deal with the contentions of the parties, on merit. 14. We are conscious of well settled law that the Courts or Tribunal shall not interfere with the matter where an employee of Government or its instrumentality, who remained in service for over decades, with no objection whatsoever raised to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his service career before the Court or Tribunal seeking correction of his date of birth in his service record. 15. In this matter, it is an undisputed fact that the respondents called objections vide notice dated 15th September, 2011 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner had submitted his objection on 7th October, 2011 i.e. 10 years before his date of retirement. Thereupon the genuineness of Matriculation Certificate was examined by the respondents and on satisfaction that the certificate in valid one, the Sub-Area Level Committee and the Area Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for correction of date of birth. 16. However, for long period of 9 years and 4 months, no decision was communicated to the petitioner, though the reminder letter was issued by the petitioner on 1st July, 2019. 16. However, for long period of 9 years and 4 months, no decision was communicated to the petitioner, though the reminder letter was issued by the petitioner on 1st July, 2019. In the above facts and circumstances, we are at a loss to understand as to how the petitioner could be nonsuited on the ground of delay and laches. 17. On the contrary, if there is any delay, it is on the part of the respondents in deciding such representation or objection of the petitioner for correction of his date of birth, for such a long period of nine years and four months. Thus, for the fault on the part of the respondents in not deciding the application for such a long period, the petitioner cannot be asked to suffer. 18. Had the representation/objection dated 7th October, 2011 of the petitioner been decided immediately and adverse to his interest, the petitioner would have approached to this Court years before, for redressal of his grievances. Thus, the delay on the part of the respondents in deciding the representation/objection of the petitioner will not come in the way of the petitioner. 19. In the circumstances, the contentions of the respondents that the petitioner has approached to this Court after 30 years of his service at the fag end of his service cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Secretary & Commissioner, Home Department and others Vs. R. Kirubakaran, (1994) Supp1 SCC 155, has observed that unless a clear case on the basis of materials which can be held to be conclusive in nature, is made out by the respondent, the Court or the Tribunal should not issue a direction, on the basis of materials which make such claim only plausible. Before any such direction is issued, the Court or the Tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. If no rule or order has been framed or made, prescribing the period within which such application has to be filed, then such application must be filed within the time, which can be held to be reasonable. The applicant has to produce the evidence in support of such claim, which may amount to irrefutable proof relating to his date of birth. Whenever any such question arises, the onus is on the applicant, to prove about the wrong recording of his date of birth, in his service book. 21. In the backdrop of above referred touchstone, we revert back the contentions of the respective parties. 22. At this juncture, we are of the opinion that it is necessary to refer to relevant II No.76, which is reproduced hereunder: "(B) Review determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees.- (i)(a) In the case of the existing employees matriculation certificate of (sic or) higher secondary certificate issued by the recognised universities of Board or middle pass certificate issued by the cards issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date of employment. (I) b).... ii) Wherever there is no variation in records, such cases will not be reopened unless there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management. The management after being satisfied on the merits of the case will take appropriate action for correction through Determination Committee/Medical Board" 23. The impugned order states that when the petitioner was appointed, the II No.37 was in force and it has been replaced by II no.76. It further states that because the petitioner did not raise any dispute regarding date of birth prior to 25th April, 1988, the case of the petitioner was treated as undisputed case and therefore, it cannot be reopened. 24. The aforesaid ground cannot be accepted in view of the judgment in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw, (2014) 12 SCC 570 , wherein it has observed thus: "...We have further noticed that Implementation Instruction 76 clause (i)(a) permits rectification of the date of birth by treating the date of birth mentioned in the school leaving certificate to be correct provided such certificates were issued by the educational institution prior to the date of employment...." 25. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw (supra) the facts are identical with the facts of the present case. In the said matter, the respondent was appointed on 31st March, 1973 i.e. before the date of II No.76 came into force in the year 1988 like the petitioner in the present case, who was appointed in the year 1984 i.e. prior to coming into force II No.76. In the said case also like the present matter, in view of II No.76 contained National Coal Wage Agreement III, the employer gave all its employees a chance to identify and rectify the discrepancies in the service records. Thus, according to us, the present case is squarely covered by the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others Vs. Chhota Birsa Uranw (supra). 26. In the present matter, it has come on record and not disputed by the respondents that the Umrer Sub Area Committee and the Area Committee recommended the case of the petitioner for change of the date of birth from 1st July 1961 to 6th December, 1961 as per the II No.76 in all official record. It has further come on record and not disputed by the respondents that after joining on the post of 'Sirdar', 'Overman' and lastly 'Senior Overman', the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 6th December, 1961 in the official record. Moreover, record shows that the petitioner was called through Employment Exchange and Registration Card of the Employment Exchange issued to the petitioner contains the date of birth of the petitioner as 6th December 1961. It is also not disputed by the respondents that the said Employment Registration Card was asked to be submitted by the petitioner at the time of interview. Further more no dispute is raised by the respondents about the genuineness of the Matriculation Certificate which shows the date of birth of the petitioner as 6 th December, 1961. Further, the fact pleaded by the petitioner that wrong date of birth was recorded due to negligence of a clerk in the office of Mine Manager, has not been disputed by the respondent. Thus, the said mistake was an obvious clerical error. Further, the fact pleaded by the petitioner that wrong date of birth was recorded due to negligence of a clerk in the office of Mine Manager, has not been disputed by the respondent. Thus, the said mistake was an obvious clerical error. Hence, there is ample material available on record in support of the claim of the petitioner that his date of birth was wrongly recorded as 1st July, 1961 in place of 6th December, 1961. The petitioner has successfully produced evidence of unrefutable nature in support of his case. Hence, we find that the petitioner has discharged his onus to prove the recording of wrong date of birth. 27. Hence, we are of the considered view that the respondents have failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the II 76. The aforesaid omission on the part of the respondents amounts to inaction whereby real injustice has been caused to the petitioner. 28. The approach of the respondents in this matter clearly shows avoidance on the part of the respondents to rectify the date of birth of the petitioner, particularly when the respondents have not stated that the date of birth of the petitioner was not 6th December, 1961 as per the Matriculation Certificate. There is obviously an error committed by the respondents and the date of birth should have been corrected. 29. Once the respondents gave all its employees a chance of identify and rectify the discrepancies in service record by raising objections, the respondents could not say the exercise was only a formality or had a different purpose. In the said backdrop, the stand taken by the respondents that the objections were not called for the purpose as it was interpreted by the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 30. Furthermore, the respondents are not disputing the case of the petitioner that the respondents have corrected the date of births of similarly situated employees like petitioner. The respondents are also not disputing the correctness of entry of birth in matriculation certificate and are banking upon a reason which is connected with procedure, though their own procedure permits correction of birth entry while in service. The respondents are also not disputing the correctness of entry of birth in matriculation certificate and are banking upon a reason which is connected with procedure, though their own procedure permits correction of birth entry while in service. Thus, in the above stated backdrop, we are of the opinion that the impugned 'Reasoned Order' is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence needs to be set aside with direction to the respondents to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 6th December, 1961 as per II No.76, in all official record. 31. As regards, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd., and others Vrs. Dinabandhu Majumdar (supra) and Bharat Coking Coal Limited and others Vrs. Shyam Kishore Singh, (2020) 3 SCC 411 , relied upon by the respondents, there is no dispute about the principal of law laid down in both the said judgments, however, both the judgments are distinguishable on facts and therefore the said judgments are not of any help to the petitioner in this matter. 32. The judgment relied upon by the respondents in the case of Satishkumar S/o Hardayal Pashine Vrs. Western Coalfields Ltd., and others in Writ Petition No. 2289 of 1998 delivered on 19th September, 2016, Kapil Deo S/o Ram Naresh Shahi Vrs. Chief General Manager, Nagpur Area, Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 3528 of 2015 delivered on 18th July, 2017 and Bhola Matru Harde, Nagpur Vrs. Chief General Manager, Nagpur Area, Nagpur and another in Writ Petition No. 3850 of 2017 delivered on 19th January, 2018 are also of no help to the respondents in this matter, as the said judgments are distinguishable on facts. 33. In view of the observations and findings recorded above and having found merits in the present petition, we pass the following order. ORDER i. The Writ Petition No.1315 of 2021 is allowed; ii. The respondents are directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 6th December, 1961 in the service record of the petitioner; iii. No order as to costs. Later on 34. Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the respondents makes a request for suspending the effect and operation of the judgment. 35. The respondents are directed to correct the date of birth of the petitioner as 6th December, 1961 in the service record of the petitioner; iii. No order as to costs. Later on 34. Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the respondents makes a request for suspending the effect and operation of the judgment. 35. The prayer is staunchly opposed by Shri Sudame, learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that if the prayer is granted, it may adversely affect the right of the petitioner and may also lead to defeating of his claim. 36. Considering the law governing the field, we do not know that the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner has any basis. Ultimately, the final result of the Special Leave Petition or the Appeal that the respondents may prefer before the Hon'ble Apex Court would govern the rights and liabilities of both sides, but, just in case, the case proposed to be put forward by the respondents before the Hon'ble Apex Court is to be accepted, it may result in some complications as regards recovery of the salary that may have been paid to the petitioner during the interregnum. Therefore, we are inclined to grant the request of the learned counsel for the respondents. The effect and operation of this judgment are hereby suspended for a period of two weeks.