MOHAMMAD AFTAB MIRversusSTATE OF J & K & ORS.

                   [2011] 5 S.C.R. 705


                MOHAMMAD AFTAB MIR                           A
                            v.
                 STATE OF J & K & ORS.
          (Civil Appeal No. 2815-2816 of 2011)
                    MARCH 31, 2011
                                                             B
     [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

     Service Law - Promotion - Out of turn promotion I
Accelerated promotion - State of Jammu & Kashmir - Shrine
of Hazrat Shaikh Nooruddin Noorani in the town of Charare C
Sharif - Appellant was SHO, Chadoora Police Station,
adjacent to the town of Charare Sharif - Destruction of Charare
Sharif shrine in encounter between the Indian troops and
armed militants who had laid siege to the shrine - Consequent
violent attempts by unruly mobs to enter Charare Sharif D
through Chadoora - Claim of appellant that he displayed
exemplary courage and patriotism as part of his official duties
in containing the law and order situation - Placing reliance
upon circular dated 6-3-1990 published by 'State of Jammu
and Kashmir, he laid claim for out of turn promotion - E
Recommendations had been made by senior officers in
respect of three police officials including the appellant -
Appellant, however, denied out of turn promotion while the
other two police officials given such promotion - Circular
dated 6-3-1990 provided for accelerated promotion for F
 Government employees whose performance in discharge of
their duties and combating militancy was outstanding - Writ
petition filed by appellant dismissed by High Court on the
ground that the State Government vide subsequent Circular
dated 6-1-2000 provided that out of turn promotion could be G
considered only for consistently exceptional performance on
the· anti-militancy front - Meanwhile appellant was granted
promotion in routine course - Whether promotion should be
given to appellant from retrospective· effect from the date on
                           705                               H
    706     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011] 5 S.C.R.


A which the other two police officials had been given out of turn
  promotion - Held: The decision of the Single Judge was
  based on Circular dated 6-1-2000 while the appellant's claim
  was under the earlier Circular dated 6-3-1990, in relation to
  incidents which had taken place prior to the promulgation of
B the Circular dated 6-1-2000 - Hence, appellant's claim for out
  of turn promotion require reconsideration in the light of the
  Circular dated 6-3-1990 and not the Circular dated 6-1-2000
  - Case of appellant directed to be reconsidered in
  accordance with the Circular dated 6-3-1990, for the purpose
c of granting retrospective effect to the promotion already
  granted to him in routine course, and if such retrospective
  effect is given, to consider such other benefits that he may,
  thereafter, become entitled to in accordance with law.

       Appellant, a Sub-Inspector in the Jammu and
D Kashmir Police, was posted as the Station House Officer
  of Chadoora Police Station, adjacent to the town of ·
  Charare Sharif where the shrine of Hazrat Shaikh
  Nooruddin Noorani is situated. In 1995, armed militants
  laid siege to the aforesaid shrine whereafter a fierce
E encounter took place between the Indian troops and the
  militants, on account of which the entire town of Charare
  Sharif, including the aforesaid shrine and about 1500
  residential houses, were gutted. This triggered off violent
  protests all over Kashmir and, in particular, in the nearby
F areas from where enraged citizens started marching
  towards Charare Sharif.
      The appellant claims to have displayed exemplary
  courage and at the risk of his life prevented a temple from
G being desecrated and burnt by an unruly mob of about
  3000 people and saved the city from being converted into
  a battle field. According to the appellant, he successfully
  resisted violent attempts by unruly mobs and
  processions of thousands of people to enter Charare
H
 MOHAMMA[) AFTAB MIR v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 707


   Sharif through Chadoora which was under his A
· jurisdiction. In effect, according to the appellant, it was
   the exemplary courage and patriotism as displayed by .
  .him as part of his official duties which prevented the
   situation from going out of hand in the aftermath of the
   destruction of the Charare Sharif shrine. It is the B
   appellant's case that in order to gear up its administrative
   machinery and to effectively deal with the law and order
   situation, the State of Jammu and Kashmir took a policy
   decision to provide for ~ccelerated promotion fol'
   Government employees whose performance in discharge c
   of their duties and combating militancy was outstanding.
   A Circular, being No.14-GR of 1990, dated 6th March,
   1990, was published by the State of Jammu and Kashmir
   in this regard.

      The Director General of Police gave only the S.H.O., D
 Charare Sharif, and another police official out-of-turn
 promotion, even though recommendations had also
 been made in respect of the appellant for such out-of-turn
 promotion. The appellant filed Writ Petition, in the High
 Court, for a direction to the Authority concerned to E
 consider and promote the appellant to the rank of
 Inspector in recognition of his excellent performance.
 The High Court through an interim order directed the
 authorities to examine the appellant's case and to inform
 the Court of the decision taken on the basis of such F
 examination. However, nothing further materialized
 pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court
 and in routine course, the Appellant was granted
 promotion. Ultimately, a Single Judge of the High Court
 dismissed the appellant's Writ Petition, and the Letters G
 Patent Appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench
 of the High Court.

    In the instant appeal, it was contended by the
 appellant that he was duly covered by the Circular No.14-   H
    708      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A GR of 1990 dated 6th March, 1990 and his claim to out-
  of-turn promotion was duly supported by the
  recommendations by the officers who were present when
  the Charare Sharif incidents took place. However, the
  appellant has already been promoted to the post of
B Inspector on 19th August, 2000, and the only question
  which survived for consideration before this Court was
  whether promotion should be given to the appellant with
  retrospective effect from the date on which S.H.0.,
  Charare Sharif, and the other police official were given
c out of turn promotion.
          Allowing the appeals, the Court

         HELD:1. In the absence of any glaring discrepancy
    or bias in the decision-making process, ordinarily the
D   Court does not normally take upon itself the task of
    making a subjective assessment of an officer's
    performance in relation to matters of promotion and that
    too of the nature contemplated in the present case.
    However, at the same time, the Court is also entitled to
E   consider the materials placed before it in order to arrive
    at a conclusion as to whether an injustice has been
    caused to the concerned officer. In the present case, both
    the Superintendent and Senior Superintendent of Police
    had a chance to observe the Appellant's performance on
F   the ground when the incident was actually taking place
    and they have recommended that the Appellant should
    be given out-of-turn promotion. The Director General of
    Police has also recognized the exemplary performance
    of the appellant. All such recommendations seemed to
G   suggest that the performance of the Appellant merited
    special consideration. [Para 10] [715-D-G]
       2. While considering the appellant's claim for out-of-
  tu rn promotion or accelerated promotion in the Writ
  Petition filed by him, the Single Judge took special note
H of the. condition, procedure and norms which provided
MOHAMMAD AFTAB MIR \.'. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 709 .


that out-of-turn promotion would be considered only for A
consistently exceptional performance on the anti-
militancy front. The Judge took note of the factthat except
for two episodes, which, in any event, were performed in
the usual course of duties, the same did not constitute
any consistent exceptional performance on the part of the B
appellant which would entitle him to out-of-turn
promotion. The said view was endorsed by the Division
Bench while dismissing the Letters Patent Appealfiled by
the appellant. Neither the Single Judge nor the Division
Bench of the High Court appears to have given proper c
attention to the Circular No.14-GR of 1990 dated 6th
March, 1990, in relation to the recommendations which :
had been made by the Superintendent and the Senior
Superintendent of Police. [Paras 11, 12] [716-B-E]

     3. However, .from the materials on record it is quite        D
clear that the claim of the appellant is covered by .the
policy decision of the Government contained in Circular
No.14-GR of 1990 dated 6th March, 1990, which provided
an incentive to all Government employees to give their
best performance of duties in the service of the people           E
and in meeting the challenge of the anti-national forces
to disturb the law and order situation in the State. It is only
subsequently that on 6th January, 2000, that a
Government Order No.Home-3(P) of 2000 was published
by the State in its Home Department regarding the                 F
procedure for out-of-turn promotion in the Police
Department. It is in the said circular that it has been
indicated that out-of-turn promotion could be considered
only for consistently exceptional performance on the anti"
militancy front and that the recommendations of the               G
Director General of Police, along with the dossier of the
concerned employee, along with other formalities and the'
extent of deviation from the seniority rule, would have to
be placed before the Home Department Select Committee
for consideration and recommendation which would then             H
   710     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 5 S C.R.
                     <I'


A be placed before the Chief Minister with the prior
  approval of the Minister of State, Home Department. [Para
  13] [716-F-H; 717-A-C]                .

         4. The circular dated 6th January, 2000, directly links
8 up out-of-turn promotion with· the concept of consistently
    exceptional performance on the anti-militancy front,
    which did not figure in the earlier Circular No.14-GR of .
    1990 dated 6th March, 1990. Both the Single Judge and
    the Division Bench appeifr to have overlooked the
    difference in the two differe·nt circulars and the decision
C of the Single Judge is based on the later Circular dated
    6th January, 2000, while the Appellant's claim is under the
    earlier Circular of 6th March, 1990, in relation to incidents
    which had taken place prior to the promulgation of the
    Government Order dated 6th January, 2000. [Para 14]
D . [717 -C-E]

       5. It is clear from the documentary evidence on
  record that the Respondent State of Jammu and Kashmir
  is also alive to the fact that the claim of the appellant has
E to be considered in the light of the earlier Circular dated
  6th March, 1990, and not by the subsequent Circular
  dated 6th January, 2000. In these circumstances, the
  appellant's claim for out-of-turn promotion, on the basis
  of the facts disclosed, require reconsideration in the light
F of the Circular dated 6th March, 1990, and not the Circular
  dated 6th January, 2000, as has been sought to be done
  in his case. [Paras 15,16] [718-C-E]

      6. The orders passed by the Single Judge and the
  Division Bench of the .High Court are set aside and it is
G directed that the case of the Appellant be reconsidered
  by the concerned Respondents in accordance with the
  Circular No.14-GR of 1990 dated 6th March, 1990, for the
  purpose of granting retrospective effect to the promotion
  already granted to him on 19th August, 2000, and if such
H
MOHAMMAD AFTAB MIR v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 711


retrospective effect is given, to consider such other              A
benefits that he may, thereafter, become entitled to in
accordance with law. [Para 17] (718-F·G)
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
2815-2816 of 2011.
                                                                   8
    From the Judgment & Order dated 23.7.2007 of the High
Court of Jammu & Kashmir in LP.A. No. 149 of 2007 and final
order dated 24.9.2008 in Review Petition No. 4 of 2007 in
LP.A. No. 149 of 2007.
    Manoj V. George, Rifat Ara, Mohd. lrshad Hanif for the         C
Appellant.
    Gaurav Pachananda, Sr .. AAG, Sunil Fernandes, Sidhant
Goel, Rahil Kohali for the Respondents ..
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    D
     ALTAM-6,5 KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.
             I
      2. In November, 1990, when militancy was at its height in
the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Appellant was selected
for the post of Sub-Inspector in the Jammu and Kashmir Police.     E
In February, 1995, he was posted as the Station House Officer
of Chadoora Police Station, adjacent to the town of Charare
Sharif in the district of Budgam, which is the convergence point
for pilgrims and other visitors to the shrine of Hazrat Shaikh
Nooruddin Noorani, situated in Charare Sharif in order to reach    F
the shrine, people have to travel through Chadoora which is the
gateway to the shrine. At the time of the Appellant's posting at
Chadoora Police Station, his batch-mate, Shaikh Hamidlilla,
was already serving as the Station House Officer. Charare
Sharif                                                             G
     3. In between the months of February and May, 1995,
armed militants laid siege to the aforesaid shrine prompting the
Government to send two units of the army backed by the Border
Security Force to flush out the militants from the shrine
precincts. The Chadoora Police Station under the Appellant's       H
    712      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A charge was saddled with the duty of ensuring that more militants
  and unruly mobs did not enter Charare Sharif town during the
  said period. On 10th and 11th of May, 1995, in a fierce
  encounter between the Indian troops and the militants, the entire
  town of Charare Sharif, including the aforesaid shrine and about
B 1500 residential houses, were gutted. This triggered off violent
  protests all over Kashmir and, in particular, in the nearby areas
  from where enraged citizens in processions and even in unruly
  mobs starting marching towards Charare Sharif, not only
  threatening further deterioration in the law and order situation
c therein, but also threatening to destroy the secular fabric of the
  Valley by resorting to communal violence. The Appellant claims
  to have displayed exemplary courage and at the risk of his life
  prevented a temple at Badipora from being desecrated and
  burnt by an unruly mob of about 3000 people and the action
  taken by the Appellant saved Badipora from being converted
0
  into a battle field. According to the Appellant, he successfully
  resisted violent attempts by unruly mobs and processions of
  thousands of people to enter Charare Sharif through Chadoora
  which was under his jurisdiction. In effect, according to the
  appellant, it was the exemplary courage and patriotism as
E displayed by him as part of his official duties which prevented
  the situation from going out of hand in the aftermath of the
  destruction of the Charare Sharif shrine.
       4. It is the Appellant's case that in order to gear up its
F administrative machinery and to effectively deal with the law and
  order situation, the State of Jammu and Kashmir took a policy
  decision to provide for accelerated promotion for Government
  employees whose performance in discharge of their duties and
  combating militancy was outstanding. A Circular, being No.14-
G GR of 1990, dated 6th March, 1990, was published by the State
  of Jammu and Kashmir in this regard. The procedure for
  accelerated promotion entailed a special report to be obtained
  about the conduct and performance .of the officer concerned
  which was to be considered by the Promotion Committee. It
H was also provided that the Government would consider the
MOHAMMAD AFTAB MIR v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 713
           [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
grant of accelerated promotion where the special report brought . A
out outstanding performance on the part of the officer
concerned.
     5. On 12th May, 1995, the day after the incident in Charare
Sharif, the Inspector General of Police and the Senior
                                                                    8
Superintendent of Police visited the area to assess the
situation. On 10th June, 1995, the Director General of Police
gave only the S.H.O., Charare Sharif, Shaikh Hamidulla and
Sub-lhspector Sonaullah, out-of-turn promotion, even though
recommendations had also been made in respect of the
Appellant for such out-of-turn promotion. The Appellant has         C
referred to the Letters of Appreciation given by the
Commanding Officer of the 12th Bn. Rashtriya Rifles, the
Commandant ofthe 136th Bn. BSF, the Commanding Officer
of the 7th Bn. Jat Regiment, Superintendent of Police, Jammu
and Kashmir Police and the Senior Superintendent of Police.         D
acknowledging the outstanding role of the Appellant in
containing the law and order situation following the destruction
of Charare Sharif and, in particular, the shrine of Hazrat Shaikh
Nooruddin Noorani and recommending him for accelerated
promotion.                                                          E
      6. On 7th August. 1996, the Director General of Police
 issued a Commendation Certificate with cash reward of
 Rs.2,000/- in recognition of the Appellant's exemplary
 performance. Thereafter, since nothing further materialized. the
 Appellant filed Writ Petition, being 5114 of 1996 in the High      F
·Court of Jammu and Kashmir, for a direction to the Authority
-concerned to consider and promote the Appellant to the rank
•of Inspector in recognition of his excellent performance. On
 12th December, 1996, the High Court through an interim order
•directed the authorities to examine the Appellant's case and       G
Ito inform the Court of the decision taken on the basis of such
 examination. Soon thereafter on 1st March, 1997, militants
 Jroke into the Appellant's house and killed his father.
 -~ecognising the fact that the Appellant had been discriminated
 9gainst, the Superintendent of Police recommended that             H
        714     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 5 S.C.R.

    A   retrospective promotion be given to the Appellant from the date
        of the order passed in respect of Shaikh Hamidulla and Sub-
        Inspector Sonaullah. However, nothing further materialized
        pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court on
        12.12.1996 and on 19th August, 2000, in routine course; the
    B   Appellant was granted promotion.
             7. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge dismissed the
        Appellant's Writ Petition on 28th May, 2007, and the Letters
        Patent Appeal No.149 of 2007 was also dismissed by the
        Division Bench of the High Court on 23rd July, 2007.
    c
             8. On behalf of the Appellant it was urged that he was duly
        covered by the Circular No.14-GR of 1990 dated 6th March,
        1990 and his claim to out-of-turn promotion was duly supported
        by the recommendations by the officers who were present
    0   when the Charare Sharif incidents took place. It was submitted
        that the task performed by the Appellant at Chadoora was no
        less significant than the task performed by the Police personnel
,       in Cha-rare Sharif itself and there was, therefore, no reason to
        discriminate between the Appellant and the Station House
        Officer of Charare Sharif, particularly when both had been
    E   recommended for out-of-turn promotion by the Superintendent
        of Police (Operations) and the Senior Superintendent of
        Police, Budgam District, Kashmir.
            9. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the
    F Respondent-State that the case of the Appellant for out-of-turn
      promotion had been duly considered by the authoriti~s at the
      highest levels and a decision was taken. considering the
      situation at the ground level on 10th and 11th May. 1995 when
      Charare Sharif town was gutted. It was contended that the
    G situation in Charare Sharif town itself and in Chadoora were
      different, in that, within Charare Sharif town the Police were
      engaged with the militants directly as they had moved into the
      shrine itself, whereas in Chadoora the duty performed on the
      said two days was one of containment Regarding the incident
    H at Badipora, the same was also aimed against communal
MOHAMMAD AFTAB MIR v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 715
           [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
forces who were trying to burn down the temple, but the same           A
also involved containment and not a direct and active
confrontation with militants. It was submitted that in the different
circumstances, involving the S.H.O. of Charare Sharif and the
Appellant, it could not be said that the Appellant had been
discriminated against in the matter of out-of-turn promotion.          B
       10. Having considered the submissions made on behalf
of the parties and the materials on record, as also the.
judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court, it does appear that the circumstances
prevailing within the town of Charare Sharif and in Chadoora C
were different during the disturbance and the decision to grant
out-of-turn promotion to Shaikh Hamidulla, who was the Station
House Officer, Charare Sharif, during those fateful days was
fully justified. In the absence of any glaring discrepancy or bias
in the decision-making process, ordinarily the Court does not D
normally take upon itself the task· of making a subjective
assessment of an officer's performance in relation to matters
of promotion and that too. of the nature contemplated in the
present case. However, at the same time, the Court is also
entitled to consider the materials placed before it in order to E
arrive at a conclusion as to whether an injustice has been
caused to the concerned officer. In the present case, both the
 Superintendent and Senior Superintendent of Police, Budgam
 District, had a chance to observe the Appellant's performance
on the ground on 10th and 11th of May, 1995, when the incident F
was actually taking place and they have recommended that the
Appellant should be given out-of-turn promotion. The Director
General of Police has also recognized the exemplary
 performance of the appellant. All such recommendations
seemed to suggest that the performance of the Appellant G
merited special consideration. Of course, the Appellant has
already been promoted to the post of Inspector on 19th August,
2000, and the only question which now survives is whether such
promotion should be given retrospective effect from the date
on which Shaikh Hamidulla and Sub-Inspector Sonaullah were
                                                                   H
    716      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 5 S.C.R.


A given such promotion.
        11. While considering the Appellant's claim for out-of-turn
  promotion or accelerated promotion in the Writ Petition filed
  by him, the learned Single Judge took special note of the
  condition, procedure and norms which provided that out-of-turn
8 promotion would be considered only for consistently exceptional
  performance on the anti-militancy front. The learned Judge took
  note of the fact that except for two episodes, which, in any event,
  were performed in the usual course of duties, the same did not
  constitute any consistent exceptional performance on the part
C of the Appellant which would entitle him to out-of-turn promotion.
  The said view was endorsed by the Division Bench while
  dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Appellant
  herein.

0       12. Neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division
  Bench of the High Court appears to have given proper attention
  to the Circular No.14-GR of 1990 dated 6th March, 1990, in
  relation to the recommendations which had been made by the
  Superintendent and the Senior Superintendent of Police,
E Budgam District. However, the final assessment for giving out-
  of-turn promotion lay with Director General of Police and in his
  judgment a cash reward of Rs.2,000/- was felt to be appropriate
  in recognition of the exemplary services rendered by the
  Appellant.
F       13. However, from the materials on record it is quite clear
  that the claim of the Appellant is covered by the policy decision
  of the Government contained in Circular No.14-GR of 1990
  dated 6th March, 1990, which provided an incentive to all
  Government employees to give their best performance of duties
G in the service of the people and in meeting the challenge of the
  anti-national forces to disturb the law and order situation in the
  State. It i.s only subsequently that on 6th January, 2000, that a
  Government Order No.Home-3(P) of 2000 was published by
  the State in its Home Department regarding the procedure for
H out-of-turn promotion in the Police Department. It is in the said
MOHAMMAD AFTAB MIR v. STATE OF J & K & ORS. 717
           [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
circular that it has been indicated that out-of-turn promotion     A
could be considered only for consistently exceptional
performance on the anti-r\iilitancy front and that the
recommendations of the Director General of Police, along with
the dossier of the concerned. employee, along with other
formalities and the extent of deviation from the seniority rule,   B
would have to be placed before the Home Department .Select
Committee for consideration and recommendation which would
then be placed before the Chief Minister with the prior approval
of the Minister of State, Home Department.
      14. The aforesaid circular dated 6th January, 2000, directly C
links up out-of-turn promotion with the concept of consistently .
exceptional performance on the anti-militancy front, which did
not figure in the earlier Circular No.14-GR of 1990 dated 6th
March, 1990. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench appear to have overlooked the difference in the two D
different circulars and the decision of the learned Single Judge
is based on the later Circular dated 6th January, 2000, while
the Appellant's claim is under·the earlier Circular of 6th March;
1990, in relation to incidents which had taken place prior to the
promulgation of the Government Order dated 6th January, E
2000. In fact, in the Supplementary Affidavit filed on \:Jehalf of
the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 3rd August, 2010, the said
two circulars have been referred to and it has bee.n submitted
that the Circular of 6th January, 2000, had been issued in
continuation and in addition to the Circular dated 6th March, F
 1990. It has also been stated that since the Circular dated 6th
January, 2010, was issued subsequent to the circular issued
in the year 1990, cases which have occurred after the issuance
 of the 2000 Circular would be subject to the same. It has been
categorically stated that the case of the Appellant belongs to G
the period prior to the issuance of the 2000 Circular and,
therefore, he would be governed by the 1990 Circular. Of
course, it has also been submitted that the said Circular dated
6th March, 1990, does not confer any legal right on the
Appellant nor does it cast any obligation on the State of Jammu
                                                                   H
    718      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 5 S.C.R.


A and Kashmir, since it was only an internal guideline which
  authorized the State Government to grant out-of-turn promotion
  in cases where the officials of the Jammu and Kashmir Police
  display exemplary bravery and courage in confronting terrorists,
  militants and insurgents. In the said affidavit it has been sought
B to be justified that the case of the Appellant did not m~rit out-
  of-turn promotion and he deserved a cash reward which had
  been duly awarded to him.
       15. It is clear that the Respondent State of Jammu and
  Kashmir is also alive to the fact that the claim of the Appellant
C has to be considered in the light of the earlier Circular dated
  6th March, 1990, and not by the subsequent Circular dated 6th
  January, 2000.
         16. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the
o   Appellant's claim for out-of-turn promotion, on the basis of the
    facts disclosed, require reconsideration in the light of the
    Circular dated 6th March, 1990, and not the Circular dated 6th
    January, 2000, as has been sought to be done in his case.
       17. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the
E learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
  and direct that the case of the Appellant be reconsidered by
  the concerned Respondents in accordance with the Circular
  No.14-GR of 1990 dated 6th March, 1990, for the purpose of
  granting retrospective effect to the promotion already gran~ed
F to him on 19th August, 2000, and if such retrospective effect is
  given, to consider such other benefits that he may, thereafter,
  become entitled to in accordance with law. The said exercise
  should be completed within three months from the date of
  communication of this order.
G         18. The appeals are allowed.
          19. There will be no order as to costs.

    B.B.B.                                          Appeals allowed.