Holding

The Court held that the department’s selective implementation of the CAT order was unjustifiable and that the appellants are entitled to the notional seniority and associated benefits, mandating full implementation of the order.

Summary

The appellants, originally appointed as Supervisor Grade‑A, were promised a second examination to be graded as Chargeman Grade‑II under a 1967 scheme, but the examination was never held and a "pick‑and‑choose" policy was adopted. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ordered that the appellants be given notional seniority as if they had passed the exam, a direction that was implemented for some similarly situated employees but not for the appellants. The Supreme Court held that denying the appellants the benefit while granting it to others was unjustifiable and that the order of the Court must be fully implemented. It clarified that the appellants are entitled to the notional seniority and related promotion benefits. The Court also directed that any contemptuous action against officials for non‑implementation be stayed and awarded costs to the appellants.

Issues considered

Whether the department’s refusal to implement the CAT order granting notional seniority to the appellants, while granting it to similarly situated employees, violates the principle of equality.
Whether the concept of "notional seniority" as interpreted by the CAT includes entitlement to promotion and related benefits.
Whether the Supreme Court can modify the CAT order and direct its full implementation.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

senioritynotional seniorityservice lawequalitydiscriminationpromotionadministrative tribunalcontemptimplementation of tribunal order

Judgment

A PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYA Y AND ORS. r f ~

v.
V.K. KAPOOR AND ANR.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Service Law:

c Seniority-Posts ofCharge-man Grade III Supervisor Grade-A-
Examination for-Some employees getting marginally less marks
appointed as Supervisor Grade A-Under the Scheme such employees
were to be given a chance to appear in examination to be graded as
Charge-man Grade II, but no such examination held and a pick and
D choose policy adopted-Later, both posts merged as Charge-man
Grade-II-Tribunal allowing the claim of affected employees anq
directing to refix iheir notional seniority as Charge-man Grade !!-
Benefit oforder ofTribunal given to some employees and not to others
on the plea ofinterpretation as regards concept ofnotional seniority
E in the judgment ofthe Tribunal-HELD: Action on part ofdepartment
in giving benefit oforder ofTribunal to some employees and denying
the same to other similarly situated and affected employees is wholly
unjustifiable-Judgment ofa Court should not be read as a statute, it
should be read in its entirety-Constitution of India-Article I 4-
F Judgment.

The appellants, who appeared in the examination for appointment
to the post of Charge-man Grade II or Supenrisor Grade A, were
appointed as SupenrisorGrade-A on account ofthe marginal difference
G in the marks obtained by them. By an order of the Director General
issued on 4.5.1967 they were to be given another chance to appear in
the examination to enable them to be graded as Charge-man Grade-II,
but the said order was not implemented and a policy of pick and choose
was adopted to grant the benefit. With effect from 1.1.1-980 the posts of
H 462
I

;
PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY v. V.K. KAPOOR 463

SupenisorGrade-A and Charge-man Grade-II were merged. The issue A
of seniority led to the litigation and, ultimately, the Central
Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 9.7.1990 directed the
department to refix notional seniority of the affected employees, as if
all the applicants came out successful in the selection test for promotion
to the post of Charge-man Grade-II, from their respective dates of B
examination; and that the decision would be binding on all persons
similarly situated. Itwas also observed that the employees will not be
entitled to any back wages or any other financial benefits save and
except the notional seniority. Meanwhile, a Full Bench of the Tribunal
also held that the beneficiaries in the case filed by appellants could be C
allowed notional seniority in the grade of Charge-man Grade-II only
for determining revised date from which presumptive pay should be
fixed. Relying on the said judgment, some other employees filed O.A.
which was allowed and the department implemented the order of the
Tribunal with reganl to them, but not in the case ofappellants. Aggrieved, D
the appellants filed the instant appeal and the contempt petition.
It was contended for the appellants that in view of the judgment
of the Central Administrative Tribunal as confirmed by the Supreme
Court, the appellants were not only entitled to be appointed as Charge- E
man Grade-II, but also entitled to promotion to higher grades and
respective notional seniority at each level having regard to the fact that
those who were juniors to them had been promoted in terms of Rule
18.4.3.
On the direction of the Court, the department filed a status report F
_..,.. admitting that benefit of the order of the Tribunal was given to some
employees, but could not be given to the appellants due to the pend ency
of the appeal as also interpretation on concept of notional seniority by
the Full Bench of the Tribunal in its judgment.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court

~-'- HELD: 1. According to the appellants, their case falls under
category I of the Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal. This fact has
also been accepted by the respondents in their status report. Thus, if H
I

~
464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
~ I* -1.:
A the appellants were to be appointed and or promoted as Charge-man .,.
Grade-II before 1st January, 1973, they became senior to the other
employees. Some employees had been given the benefit of the order
passed by the Tribunal. The action on the part of the respondents giving
benefit of the order of the Tribunal to some employees and denying the
B same to the appellants is wholly unjustifiable. The judgment of a court,
as is well known, should not be read as a statute. It has to be read in its
entirety. So read, the appellants had become entitled to the grant of ~--- '
benefits contemplated thereby. There is no reason why the same shall ---r
be denied to them. The State cannot treat employees similarly situated
c differently. It, while implementing the orders in relation to one cannot ;'
refuse fo do so in relation to others.
[Paras 19 and 20) (473-B, C, D, E, G; 474-A]

Ramesh Chand Dagav. Rameshwari Bai [2005) 4 SCC 772; Islamic
D Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, [2003) 6 SCC 697; Zee
Telefilms Ltd v. Union ofIndia, [2005) 4 SCC 649 and P.S. Sathappan v. ?-
Andhra Bank Ltd, [2004) 11SCC672, relied on. ;--
JS. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and Ors., [1996) 6 SCC 291; and
Vijay Singh, Secretary Home andAnr. v. Mittan/al Hindoliya, (1997] 1 SCC
E 258, distinguished.
State ofBiharv. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR(l961) SC 221; State
of Kerala v. Unni, (2007) 2 SCC 365 and Sneh Enterprises v.
Commissioner ofCustoms, (2006) 7 SCC 714, referred to.
;,...
F '
2. As regards the contempt petition for taking punitive action
~-
against the contemnors, at this stage they are directed to fully implement
the orders of this Court as modified on the same terms as was done in
the case of employees similarly situated. [Para 21] [474-C, D]
G CIVIL APPELLATE JURiSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4862 of
2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.7.2002 of the Central >--...
Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench at Calcutta in CPC 78/1990 in
T.A. No. 1069 of 1986.
H
PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY v. V.K. KAPOOR 465
[SINHA, J.]
Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, H.D. Thanvi, Piyush Jain and A
Pratibha Jain for the Appellants.
K.S. Bhati, Aman Sinha, Ishiita Sinha, Nupoor Sinha, Sweta, Sanjoli
and Yash Pal Dhingra for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This case has a chequered history. Appellants herein were
appointed as Chargeman Grade-II. They were, in terms of the Scheme
dated 23rd April, 1965, required to appear in an examination for C
appointment to the post of Chargeman Grade-II or Supervisor Grade-A
initially. They appeared in the said examination. They were, however,
appointed as Supervisor Grade-A on account of the marginal difference
in the marks obtained by them from the others who were appointed as
Chargeman Grade-IL The Director General on or about 4th May, 1967 D
taking into consideration the marginal difference in the marks obtained by
the appellants decided to give another chance to the appellants to appear
within six months in the next examination so as to enable them to be
graded as Chargeman Grade-II, in the event, if they qualify therein. It
resulted in issuance of Government order dated 4th May, 1967 in terms E
of which the 1965 Scheme was amended as under:-
"The Supervisory Apprentices who secure 5% marks less in the
aggregate than prescribed by the Central Selection Board for
gradation as Chargeman Grade II in a particular gradation p
examination will be graded as Supervisor Grade A/or equivalent
but will be allowed to take another chance at the next gradation
examination and on the basis of their performance may be graded
by the D.G.O.F. as fit for appointment as Chargeman Grade II
and appointed as such with effect from a date after they are so G
graded in the subsequent gradation examination.
This will have retrospective effect to cover the past cases in
which the DGOF has already allowed the Supervisory Apprentices
another chance to appear in the gradation examination."
H
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 3. Allegedly, however, the Government oflndia adopted a policy
of pick and choose and did not grant the benefit of the said Scheme to
which they were otherwise entitled thereto. {\.K. Saxena and others filed
\\-Tit petition before the Delhi High Court. Appellant herein filed a similar
writ petition before the Calcutta High Court which was marked as
B CR 1671-W/83. On establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal
under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 those
petitions were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and were •
marked as TA-1069/86. However, with effect from 1st J8:nuary, 1980 'l
the post of Supervisor Grade-A and the Chargeman Grade-II were
C directed to merge. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the said
Transferred Application of the appellants by an order dated 9th July, 1990
directing:-
"On the facts and circumstances of this case, we with respect, agree
with the observations of the Supreme Court set ont above. We
D are also of the view that the respondent authorities, in not calling
the applicants to sit in the examinations held earlier had acted
discriminately. As the course for the official respondents has
admitted that holding of intended examination is not necessary. We
direct the respondent authorities not to hold the examination. We
E also direct the respondent authorities to refix the respective notional
seniority of the applicants and fix their pay scale and all benefits
attached thereto as per rule on the basis that all the applicants came
out successful in the selection test for promotion to the post of
Chargeman Grade II from their respective dates of examination.
But they will not be entitled to any back wages or any other
F
financial benefit save and except the notional seniority. The
applicants will be entitled to be paid in accordance with the fixed
pay scale and all these directions must be completed within 90 days
from date. As the present application was filed in the representative
capacity by obtaining leave under Rule 11 of CPC from tlie Hon'ble
G High Court on 18-3-83, this decision will be binding on all other
persons similarly situated and similarly affected. The respondents
are directive to give the same benefits to them to avoid future
litigation on the same issue."
H 4. However, the said direction was partially modified by this Court
)
PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYA Y v. V.K. KAPOOR 467
-'\..,.
} [SINHA, J.]
to which we would advert to a little later. A

5. The said order was challenged before this Court. No stay,
however, was granted therein. As the Central Government was not
implementing the said order the present contempt petition was filed.
Appellants herein also filed an interlocutory application which was marked
B
as IA 3 of 1992 for a direction upon the Central Government not to make
• any promotion ignoring the order of the Tribunal dated 9th July, 1990.
-y- This Court by its orders dated 2 I st September, 1992 directed :-
"Heard learned counsel for both the parties on JA 3. Taking in
view, the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we direct c
Union oflndia not to make promotions on the posts of Foreman,
Assistant Works Manager and further higher posts ignoring the
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta dated 9th
July, 1990 till the final disposal of the present appeal. The appeal
may be listed for disposal in the month of January, 1993.".
D
--i 6. The said order passed in IA No.3 of I 992, however, was
modified on an application filed in that behalf by the Union of India. We
may place on record that another application was also filed on behalf of
All India Association of Non-Gazetted Officers for intervention and
direction, whereupon by an order dated 13th May, 1993 this Court E
directed:-
"Union oflndia has filed an application for modifying the order
dated 21.9.92 stating that this stay has been causing bottlenecks
in the operational system due to the promotions having been stayed
~r
by this Court. Since the appeal has already been directed to be F
posted for final disposal, the stay creates difficulty for the
administration to function. We permit the Union oflndia to make
promotions in respect of the posts above the post of Foreman on
according to the rules but any promotion made will be further
reviewed and be subject to the result of the appeal. IA No. 5 is G
disposed of accordingly. The Registry is directed to post this appeal
-.I.
immediately after vacation subject to part-heard."
7. The appeal preferred by the Union of India was dismissed by
this Court by an order dated 5th August, 1993, observing:
H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.
*
-{ ~~

A "Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant we must
confess our inability to appreciate the attitude of the Union of India
for approaching this Court by way of Special Leave Petition and
delay the matters b y another three years."

B 8. Appellants contend that by the said order dismissirig the appeal
preferred by the Union oflndia, this Court was alive to the fact that the
dispute between the parties not only related to original appellants/ •
petitioners but also affected their seniority and promotion occurring during -r·
the pendency thereof. While considering the question of removal of
c discrimination allegedly meted out to the appellants and determination of
their seniority which was material for their promotion to higher post, it
was observed:-.
"Needless to say that despite appointment of every supervisor
Grade "A" Chargeman Grade II the discrimination which occurred
D due to enforcement of the modified scheme since 1965 permitted
only few supervisors Grade A to appear in the next examination
persisted so far those Supervisor Grade "A" were concerned who
were appointed prior to coming into force of this scheme and were
denied similar opportunity even though they came in field of
E eligibility. The injustice arose as, if the policy of permitted
Supervisors Grade "A" to improve their grade would not have been
introduced then the seniority amongst the Supervisors would have
remained the same and those appointed in one year would have
remained senior to those appointed in latter year."
F
9. With regard .to seniority and the effect on promotion to higher ~-

post, this Court observed:-
"It is not the appointment of petitioners of Chargeman Grade II
from 1980 but also the determination of their seniority which was
G material as it is admitted that the higher posts are available for
promotion on the basis of seniority cum merit. Jbe question of ;...._
seniority therefore was of utmost importance and unless there was
some such difficulty which could not be resolved the appellant
should have taken care to see that the order of the High Court
H
}
PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAYv. V.K. KAPOOR 469
[SINHA, J.]
was complied." A

10. The Hon'ble Court further observed:-
"In any case the Tribunal in directing the respondents to be granted
notional appointment as Charegeman grade II from the date of their
first examination. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, does B
not appear to have committed any error of law. In our opinion,
... this was the only possible manner in which the injustice could have
y been remedied."
11. The Court, however, modified the said order to the following c
extent:-
"In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. It is
however, clarified that the placement of all those supervisor grade
A who came in the field of eligibility namely of securing less than
5% marks in aggregate fixed for selection as Chargeman Grade D
II, should be fixed by directing that they were selected for that post
six months from the date of their Gradation Examination."
12. We may also notice here that the appellants were not to be
granted any back wages in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 9th E
July, 1990. They, however, claimed to be entitled to all the benefits
attached thereto including seniority and promotion to the higher posts. The
said order, according to them, was partially implemented wherefor two
letters one being dated 4th November, 1993 and another being dated
10th November, 1993 were issued stating :- F
-r " ... on the basis that all the applicants came out successful in the
selection test for promotion to the post of Chargeman Gr. II from
their respective dates of examination. But they will not be entitled
to any back wages or any other financial benefits save and except
the notional seniority." G

"It was necessary to firm up the seniority position of the individuals
~-1.
in the grades of Chargeman Gr. I Assistant Foreman and Foreman
as required by holding review DPCs on the basis of the amended
seniority list in the grade ofChargeman Gr.II as on 1.1.77" H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 13. The said orders were, however, withdrawn purported to be on
the basis of a Full Bench judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal
which was rendered in the meanwhile. It was stated :
"In view of the above, the beneficiaries in the case of Pumendu
Mukhopadhyay & Ors. can be allowed notional seniority in the
B
grade of Chargeman Gr. II (Tech) only, for determining revised
date from which presumptive pay should be fixed. The persons
,,.
who are granted notional seniority can be superceded by persons
regularly promoted." "f

c 14. Later on the said order dated 4th November, 1983 was also
withdrawn directing:-
"12. Thus the seniority of Pumendu Mukhopadhyay and ors. in
the revised seniority list of Chargeman Gr. II (fech) will count from
the dates when they were regularly promoted or appointed as
D
Chargeman Gr. II (Tech) according to recruitment rules."
15. It is not in dispute that one S.K. Ganguly and others relying on ')---
the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal filed an
Original Application before it. The said 0.A was allowed. The order of
E the Tribunal in the case ofGanguly was implemented. The Tribunal by
reason of the impugned judgment, however, inter alia placing reliance
upon a decision of this Court in JS. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and
Ors., [1996] 6 SCC 291 and Vijay Singh, Secretary Home and Anr.
V. Mittan/al Hindoliya, [1997] 1 sec 258 accepted the said plea of
F Union oflndia and inter alia directed :-

"While finalizing such revised seniority, for deciding inter se seniority ~-
vis-a-viz the 26 petitioners of OA 789/96, who have been
indentified by the official respondents as similarly circumstance with
G the successful applicants of TA. 1069 of 1986 (Purnendu
Mukhopadhyay & Ors. v. Union ofIndia and Ors.,) and have
accordingly been notified as such by the offici;;tl respondents through
their notifications dated 14.8.85 and 14.11.95 vide Anenxures E >---~
and F respectively to OA 789/96, read with D.G.O.F. Notification
H dated 23.2.,96, Annexure Gin MA 222/1995 it will be necessary
j
PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYA Y v. V.K. KAPOOR 471
[SINHA, J.]
~ ... r
that they are treated as belonging to the group described at para A.
80(1) of the Full Bench (PB) judgment dated 22.12.1995,
reproduced at para 51(1) above, in the instant judgment. In other
words, they would be in the first category of employees who were
appointed as Chargeman Gr.II pfiorto 1.1.73."
B

. y
16. This Court by an order dated 1st March, 2007 with a view to
ascertain the correct position in regard to the implemenw:on of the earlier
orders, directed the respondents to file a status report. Pursuant to the
said direction a status report has been filed. In the said status report it
has been accepted that the benefits given to S.K. Ganguly and others have c
not been given to the appellants inter alia in view of the pendency of the
present special leave petition as also interpretation on the concept of
notional seniority by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal
dated 22nd December, 1995.
17. The bone of contention of the respondents, therefore, is the D
_ __. judgment of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated
22nd December, 1995 as appearing in their affidavit, which is as under:
"(i) The judgment decided the principles of seniority of the various
categories of Chargeman Grade Il(T). All the candidates in the E
present SLP got their notional seniority prior to 01.01. 73 in
pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court oflndia
dt. 05.08.1993. Hence they are the first lot of persons for the
purpose of seniority in the post of Chargeman Grade II(T) as per
~

the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal and have F
been given the seniority in the grade as per sub-para (i) and para
-r
80 of the Full Bench judgment.
(ii) The judgment of Full Bench had also interpreted the concept
of notional seniority and its consequential benefits in Para 76, 77
& 78 of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal. G
As per the interpretation the notional seniority is used only for
~ ...!._ determining the date with effect from which the presumptive pay
bf
should be fixed. It does not give the benefit seniority. Higher
notional seniority cannot be given to the detriment of others who
H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A have been actually promoted earlier. It is not always necessary that
retrospective promotion should also be accompanied by
retrospective seniority."

18. Submissions of Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing
B on behalf of the appellants, inter alia are -
(i) In view of the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal
as confirmed by this Court with modification, the appellants
were not only entitled to be appointed as Chargeman Grade-
n but also were entitled to promotion to higher grades and
c respective notional seniority at each level.
(ii) Determination of seniority at each grade therefore was material.
(ill) Although an order of stay was passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 521 of 1988 but the same
D related to only paragraph 13 of the judgment of the Tribunal
and not paragraphs 11 and 12 thereof.
)-..
(iv) The appellants were entitled to promotion having regard to the
facts that those who were juniors to them have been promoted
in terms of Rule 18.4.3 which reads as under :-
E
"18.4.3 If the officers placed junior to the officer concerned have
been promoted, he should be promoted immediately and if there
is no vacancy the junior most person officiating in the higher grade

F
should be reverted to accommodate him. On promotion, his pay
should be fixed under F.R. 27 as the stage it would have reached,
.'
had he been promoted from the date the officer immediately below
him was promoted but no arrears would be admissible. The
seniority of the officer would be determined in the order in which
his name, on review, has been placed in the select list by D.P.C. If
G in any such case a minimum period of qualifying service is
prescribed for promotion to higher grade, the period from which
an officer placed below the officer concerned in the select list was
promoted to the higher grade, should be reckoned towards the
qualifying period of service for the purpose determining his eligibility
H for promotion to the next higher grade."
PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYA Y v. V.K. KAPOOR 473
[SINHA, J.]
(v) The contention of the respondents that the employees who had A
been accorded notional seniority cannot be equated with those
who had been regularly appointed is unsustainable as the
object and purport of the order of the Tribunal as also ofthis
Court were to remove discrimination meted out to the'
appellants by promoting their juniors. B
(vi) The order of the Full Bench dated 22nd December, 1995 is
not applicable.
19. According to the appellants, their case falls under category I of.
the Full Bench judgment. This fact has also been accepted by the C
respondents in their status report. Thus if the appellants were to be ,
appointed and or promoted as Chargeman Grade-II before 1st January,
1973 they became seniors to the other employees. As we have noticed '
hereinbefore that S.K. Ganguli and others had been given the benefit of
the order passed by the Tribunal. We do not appreciate the stand of the ' D
respondents in this behalf inasmuch as whereas one set of order involving ,
employees who were similarly situated to those of the appellants, benefits
have been given but the same are being denied to them. Such an action .
on the part of the respondents in our opinion is wholly unjustifiable. The
judgment of acourt, as is well known, should not be read as a statute. It E
has to be read in its entirety. So read, the appellants had become entitled
to the grant of benefits contemplated thereby. There is no reason why
the same shall be denied to them. [See Ramesh Chand Daga v.
Rameshwari Bai, [2005] 4 SCC 772, Islamic Academy of Education
v. State of Karnataka, [2003] 6 sec 697, Zee Telefilms Ltd. V. Union F I

--'r ofIndia, (2005] 4 SCC 649 and P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd.,
(2004] 11 SCC 672. Our attention has also been drawn to the fact that
apart from S.K. Ganguly and others some other persons who were
similarly situated, namely - Prem Kumar Saha; S.K. Majumdar and Alopi
Lal, have also been granted the same benefits. G
20. In a case of this nature, in particular having regard to the fact
that the respondents have granted similar benefits to others, we fail to
understand as to how the decision of this Court in JS. Parihar (supra)
and Mittan/al (supra) could be applicable. The State cannot treat H
'.
i
~

474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A employees similarly situated differently. It cannot implement the orders in
relation to one and refuse to do so in relation to others. It is also not a
case like JS Parihar (supra) where while implementing the orders, a
particular stand has been taken by the employer giving rise to a subsequent
cause of action. It is also not a case where the order of this Court is
B capable to two interpretations. [See State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati
Kumari, AIR ( 1961) SC 221, State of Kerala v. Unni, [2007] 2 SCC
365 and Sneh Enterprises V. Commissioner ofCustoms, [~006] 7 sec )

714].
For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgment cannot be
c sustained. The appeal is allowed. We, however, before taking any punitive
action against the contemnors at this stage, would like to issue a direction
upon them to fully implement the orders of this Court as modified by this
Court on the same terms as was done in the case of employees similarly
D situated. In facts and circumstances of the case the appellants shall also
be entitled to costs which we quantify at Rs. 25,000/-.
RP. Appeal allowed.