AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):
Since the issues involved in all the captioned OAs are identical and the reliefs sought therein are also identical based on similar grounds, and with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, we proceed to dispose of all the above captioned OAs by this common Order. For the purpose of this common order, OA No.246/2022 is being treated as the lead case.
By filing the OA No.246/2022 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking theCentral Administrative Tribunal following reliefs:
“RELIEF SOUGHT: - The applicant requests this Hon‘ Tribunal be pleased to issue suitable writ order or direction to the respondents:
8.2) To grant her arrears of pay and allowances on account of the review DPC as per her revised dates for promotion as O.S., AO Gr lll, AO Gr ll., as per order Dt.22/04/2020 (Placed at Annex A-3)
8.3) In the alternative to grant her arrears of pay and allowances on account of the review DPC as per her dates for actual joining as O.S., A0 Gr Ill, and AO Gr ll, as directed by Addl. Director (Admn) & HOO, NADT Nag pu rDt.29/1 2/2020811 6/02/2022 (Placed at Annex A-4)
8.5) To direct re-computation of her retirement benefits including the leave salary, gratuity and pension after taking into effect the enhancement of the pay as above.
8.6) To grant applicant interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount of arrears of pay and allowances paid due to the order of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
8.7) any other consequential benefit including the cost of original application as may be deemed fit and suitable, as found by this honorable Tribunal.”
Facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the applicant was appointed as direct recruit Upper Division Clerk in 1983. The applicant was promoted as Senior Tax Assistant w.e.f. 03.08.2001 thereafter as Office Superintendent w.e.f. 26.03.2002 thereafter AO Gr. IlI on 04.08.2009 and AO Gr. II on 05.06.2014. On 22.4.2020, review DPCs carried out by Pr. CCIT Nagpur. Due to which the dates of promotion in the cadre of Office Superintendent & A.O. Gr.III, AO, Gr II were advanced. Accordingly, (Review DPC) for 1.4.2000, the applicant promoted as Office Superintendent w.e.f. 1.4.2000, (Review DPC) for 1.4.2009, the applicant promoted as A.O. Gr. III w.e.f. 1.4.2009, (Review DPC) for 1.4.2013, the applicant promoted as A.O. Gr. II w.e.f. 1.4.2013, Consequently, on 29/12/2020/16/2/2022, the Addl. Dir (Admn./HOO passed pay fixation order due to review DPC. Annual Increment changed to 1st January 2020 w.e.f. 1.1.2020 and orders payment of arrears. Thereafter, the applicant made representation on 27.5.2021 seeking payment of salary and allowances as per promotion order dated 22.4.2020. However, the said representation was objected to by the respondents vide order dated 01.12.2021 on the ground of pending clarification from Pr. CCIT Nagpurt. Subsequently, vide order dated 5.1.2022, the Pr. CCIT rejected the said representation claiming arrears due to review DPC. Hence, this OA.
Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply.Central Administrative Tribunal
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, in the Review DPC, the respondents themselves corrected the reservation rosters, and the wrongful operation thereof had resulted in denial of promotion to the applicant. It was contended that the applicant was otherwise eligible for promotion and was willing and available to discharge duties in the higher post carrying higher responsibility and pay. Her promotion was denied solely on account of mistakes and omissions attributable to the respondents. Therefore, the applicant claimed that she was entitled to pay and allowances, along with all other consequential benefits, from the revised dates of promotion and, consequently, to arrears of pay and allowances from such dates.
Learned counsel further submitted that, in the alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, the pay of the applicant pursuant to the Review DPC had been fixed by the order dated 29.12.2020/16.02.2022 issued by the Additional Director (Administration) and Head of Office, NADT, Nagpur. By the said order, the competent authority had directed payment of arrears of pay and allowances from the dates on which the applicant actually joined the respective promotional posts. However, the said directionCentral Administrative Tribunal was subsequently reversed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur, vide the impugned order (Annexure A-1).
Learned counsel submitted that, in terms of the applicable provisions of the Fundamental Rules, particularly FR 22, and the relevant rules governing fixation of pay, the applicant had a legitimate claim to the arrears of pay and allowances for the periods during which she had actually discharged duties in the promotional posts. It was contended that the service-book entries and the order at Annexure A-4 established that the applicant had in fact worked in the respective promotional posts and was, therefore, entitled to the pay and allowances attached to those posts. However, her salary was drawn on a lower basic pay as per table below:-
| Date of Assumption of Post as per Service Record | Basic (Rs.) | Basic as per Review DPC (Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 26/03/2002 | 5675/- | 6025/- |
| 05/08/2009 | 14830 + 4600 | 14830 + 4600 |
| 05/06/2014 | 17280 + 4800 | 17940 + 4800 |
5.3Central Administrative Tribunal Learned counsel drew attention to the comparative statement of pay and submitted that, despite the applicant having actually worked in the promotional posts, her salary continued to be drawn at a lower stage of pay. In respect of the post of Office Superintendent, which she assumed on 26.03.2002, the pay admissible was Rs.5,875/- as against Rs.5,025/- actually drawn, resulting in a difference of ₹850/- per month. Similarly, in respect of the post of AO Grade-II assumed on 05.06.2014, the applicant was entitled to pay of Rs.17,250/- as against Rs.17,940/- reflected in the relevant record, and the applicant claimed the consequential difference in pay and allowances in accordance with the applicable pay rules.
It was further submitted that, by denying the applicant the pay and allowances attached to the promotional posts in which she had actually worked, the respondents had effectively continued her at a lower stage of pay for a prolonged period, extending to approximately 168 months, despite there being no penalty or other lawful order operating against her which could justify such reduction or denial of the admissible pay.
Learned counsel contended that the action of the respondents was contrary to the statutory rules governing fixation of pay and payment of salary and allowances to Government servants. Once the applicant had actually discharged the duties of the higher posts and the Review DPC had recognised her entitlement to promotion, the respondents could not deny her the corresponding pay and allowances merely because the initial denial of promotion had occurred on account of their own erroneous operation of the reservation roster.
Learned counsel lastly submitted that the impugned direction dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure A-1), whereby the earlier decision directing payment of arrears was sought to be reversed/withdrawn, effectively amounted to reduction of the applicant's pay and deprivation of her accrued monetary benefits without any valid order or authority of law. Such action, according to the applicant, was arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unsustainable in law. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to grant the applicant arrears of pay and allowances and all consequential benefits in accordance with the revised dates of promotion and/or the periods during which she had actually worked in the promotional posts.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the contents of the reply has submitted that the applicant wasCentral Administrative Tribunal initially appointed as a direct recruit UDC in 1983 and was thereafter promoted as Senior Tax Assistant, Office Superintendent, AO Grade-III and AO Grade-II. It was submitted that the Review DPCs were convened pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No. 2181/2013 and connected matters, whereby the promotions made on the basis of reservation/roster were required to be reviewed and consequential seniority and pay fixation were to be carried out in accordance with the applicable rules. The applicant was accordingly granted the benefit of revised dates of promotion.
Learned counsel further submitted that, in respect of the post of Office Superintendent, the applicant was eligible for consideration for promotion directly from the cadre of UDC for Recruitment Year 2000-01, since the Recruitment Rules then in force contemplated such promotion for a UDC having six years' service and having qualified the Ministerial Staff Examination. It was contended that the cadre of Senior Tax Assistant was created subsequently pursuant to cadre restructuring in 2000 and, therefore, the applicant's contention that she was promoted as Office Superintendent without anCentral Administrative Tribunal intermediate promotion to Senior Tax Assistant was misconceived.
It was next submitted that the revised pay fixation was made only from the date on which the applicant actually assumed charge of the respective promotional post or actually performed the duties attached thereto. Although her promotion was given effect to notionally from the revised dates determined by the Review DPC, the applicant was not entitled to arrears of pay and allowances for the period during which she had not actually discharged the duties of the higher post. According to the respondents, the applicant accepted the revised pay-fixation orders without raising any objection and, therefore, she could not subsequently challenge the basis on which the arrears were denied.
Learned counsel argued that the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 2181/2013 did not confer an automatic right to arrears of salary upon all employees whose promotions were subsequently revised. It was submitted that the Tribunal had specifically observed that where an employee had not actually served in the promotional post, such employee could be granted the appropriate seniority in the promoted category, but not necessarily the pay attached to that post from the date of notional promotion.Central Administrative Tribunal The respondents accordingly extended the benefit of salary and other consequential benefits to the 21 applicants, who were petitioners in the said proceedings, but the same principle could not be extended to the present applicant merely on the basis of notional promotion.
Learned counsel further contended that the applicant's assertion that she was willing and available to discharge the duties of the higher post, but was denied promotion due to the respondents' erroneous operation of the reservation roster, was factually incorrect. The Review DPC was convened pursuant to the Tribunal's directions and the applicant was duly granted the promotions which became due to her. Since she had not actually worked against the promotional posts during the relevant period, she could not claim salary and allowances attached to those posts for such period. Reliance was placed upon FR 17, which, according to the respondents, provides that an officer becomes entitled to draw the pay and allowances attached to a post from the date of assumption of duties of that post and ceases to draw the same upon cessation of such duties.
6.5Central Administrative Tribunal It was also submitted that the applicant's reliance upon FR 17-A and FR 22 was misplaced. According to learned counsel, FR 17-A relates to matters such as unauthorized absence/strike and desertion of post and had no application to the present controversy, whereas FR 22 concerns fixation of pay on appointment to a post carrying a time scale of pay. The respondents maintained that the applicant's pay had already been correctly fixed in accordance with the applicable rules and the Review DPC orders and, therefore, no further arrears were payable.
Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.M. Jha, Appeal (Civil) No. 5128 of 2001 decided on 24.10.2007, to contend that arrears of salary cannot ordinarily be granted on the principle of “no work, no pay” in cases of retrospective/notional promotion. He has argued that the said principle squarely applied to the applicant's claim, since she had not actually worked in the promotional posts during the period for which she sought arrears.
It was also submitted that the respondents had fully complied with the directions contained in the order passed in OA No. 2181/2013, by conducting the Review DPCs and issuing the consequential orders, including the order dated 22.04.2020 and theCentral Administrative Tribunal revised pay-fixation orders. The impugned order returning the applicant's arrear bills was, therefore, stated to be in accordance with the Tribunal's directions and the applicable service rules.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the Original Application was barred by limitation and, apart from the question of limitation, was devoid of merit. It was contended that the applicant had failed to establish any enforceable right to arrears of pay and allowances merely on the basis of notional promotion. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the instant OA.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant byby referring to the revised promotion orders at Annexures MA1, MA2 and MA3 at pages 136 to 153of the paper book has contended that the subsequent orders issued by Respondents materially modified the dates of promotion earlier assigned to the applicant. It was submitted that, pursuant to the revised promotion orders, the applicant's promotion to the post of Office Superintendent was given effect from 30.07.2001, that to Administrative Officer Grade-III from 01.04.2009, and that to Administrative Officer Grade-II from 03.02.2014. According to learned counsel, these revised dates have aCentral Administrative Tribunal direct bearing on the applicant's entitlement to pay and allowances and, consequently, on the computation of arrears payable to her.
Learned counsel further contended that the revised promotion orders were subsequent and relevant documents which had a material bearing on the adjudication of the applicant's claim. Learned counsel argued that, once the dates of promotion had themselves been revised by the competent authority, the respondents could not deny the consequential financial benefits merely by relying upon the earlier dates of promotion or pay fixation.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well.
Having considered the pleadings, the rival submissions and the subsequent revised promotion orders, the controversy, in my view, requires to be examined by segregating two distinct claims: (i) arrears claimed merely on the basis of notional/retrospective promotion, and (ii) arrears of the higher pay for the period during which the applicant actually discharged duties on the promotional posts. The distinction is material because the principle of “no work, no pay”Central Administrative Tribunal is well settled, but it is not an inflexible rule applicable irrespective of the circumstances in which the employee was denied the benefit of promotion or the higher pay.
The first contention of the applicant is that the Review DPC itself found that her earlier promotional dates required revision on account of erroneous operation of the reservation roster and, consequently, she was granted revised dates of promotion. The record placed before us shows that the Review DPC initially granted the applicant retrospective promotion as Office Superintendent w.e.f. 01.04.2000, AO Grade-III w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and AO Grade-II w.e.f. 01.04.2013. Pursuant thereto, pay-fixation orders were issued on 29.12.2020/16.02.2022.
The respondents do not dispute that the applicant was granted the benefit of revised dates of promotion pursuant to the Review DPC. Their principal objection is that such retrospective promotion was only notional and, since the applicant had not discharged the duties of the higher post during the retrospective period, she could not claim arrears of salary for that period.
On the question of arrears merely flowing from retrospective/notional promotion, the respondents have considerableCentral Administrative Tribunal support from the settled law. In Paluru Ramkrishnaiah v. Union of India, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 541, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where an employee is deemed to have been promoted retrospectively but did not actually perform the duties of the higher post, the employee may receive consequential benefits such as retrospective refixation of pay for future purposes, but is not ordinarily entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which the higher duties were not discharged.
The same principle was reiterated in State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta, reported in (1996) 7 SCC 533, and thereafter in A.K. Soumini v. State Bank of Travancore, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 238. In Union of India v. B.M. Jha, (2007) 11 SCC 632, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly held that arrears of salary cannot ordinarily be granted merely because retrospective promotion has been granted, where the employee had not worked in the promotional post. Thus, to the extent the applicant seeks salary for the period prior to her actual assumption of the promotional posts merely because the Review DPC subsequently assigned retrospective dates of promotion, the respondents' reliance on the principle of “no work, no pay” is legally sustainable.
14.Central Administrative Tribunal However, the matter does not end there. The applicant has raised an alternative and materially different claim, namely that she had actually worked in the promotional posts, but her pay continued to be drawn at a lower stage. The pleadings record the applicant's dates of actual assumption as 26.03.2002 for Office Superintendent, 05.08.2009 for AO Grade-III and 05.06.2014 for AO Grade-II. The applicant asserts that, despite actual discharge of duties in those posts, the corresponding higher pay was not extended to her. This distinction assumes significance. B.M. Jha (supra) and Paluru Ramkrishnaiah (supra) concern the denial of arrears for a period during which the employee did not work in the higher post. They cannot, without more, be treated as authority for denying the difference between the pay actually drawn and the pay legally admissible for a period during which the employee did discharge the duties of the higher post.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has recognised that the expression “no work, no pay” is not an absolute or mechanical rule. In Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the case of an employee who was willing to work but was kept away from the promotional post for reasons attributable to the administration. TheCentral Administrative Tribunal Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the normal rule of no work, no pay would not automatically apply where the employee was prevented from working for no fault of his own.
At the same time, Jankiraman (supra) does not mean that every retrospective promotion automatically carries arrears. The later decisions, including B.M. Jha (supra), make it clear that entitlement to arrears has to be examined in the factual context of the case. Indeed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jankiraman (supra) itself modified the direction for automatic payment of arrears and held that the competent authority should consider whether arrears were payable and, if denied, give reasons.
Likewise, in State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in normal circumstances, when retrospective promotion is granted, benefits may flow from the retrospective date. However, B.M. Jha (supra) subsequently clarified the manner in which that decision had to be understood and specifically noted that the Hon’ble High Court had incorrectly relied upon K.V.L. Narasimha Rao for granting arrears in circumstances where the employee had not worked in the higher post. Therefore, the properCentral Administrative Tribunal legal position emerging from the aforesaid judgments is not that retrospective promotion invariably attracts arrears, nor that arrears can invariably be denied. The decisive consideration is the nature of the benefit claimed and the period for which it is claimed.
In the present case, therefore, it becomes necessary to examine the applicant's claim in two compartments: First, if the claim relates to the period between the revised/notional date of promotion and the date on which the applicant actually assumed charge of the promotional post, the applicant cannot claim salary of the higher post merely on the strength of retrospective promotion, unless she establishes circumstances bringing her case within the recognised exceptions to the general rule. Second, if the claim relates to the period after the applicant actually assumed charge and discharged the duties of the promotional post, the question is not one of payment of salary for “no work”. Rather, it is a question whether the applicant was correctly paid the salary legally attached to the post in which she was actually working.
The latter question becomes particularly important because the applicant has produced the revised promotion orders as AnnexuresCentral Administrative Tribunal MA-1 to MA-3. According to her, these subsequent orders have further modified the dates of promotion to Office Superintendent, AO Grade-III and AO Grade-II and consequently have a direct bearing upon the computation of her pay and arrears. The applicant has specifically contended that the competent authority itself subsequently modified the dates of promotion and, therefore, the respondents cannot continue to determine her financial entitlement on the basis of superseded dates. These subsequent orders cannot be ignored. Once the competent authority has itself altered the promotional dates, the financial consequences flowing from the final operative orders necessarily require fresh examination. The respondents cannot simultaneously rely upon the revised promotion orders for purposes of seniority/promotion and disregard those very orders while determining the consequential pay fixation, unless the applicable rules or the orders themselves expressly limit the financial benefit.
The respondents have also relied upon FR 17, contending that pay and allowances attached to a post become admissible from the date on which the officer assumes the duties of that post. This submission, in fact, does not necessarily defeat the applicant's alternative claim. On the contrary, if the service records establishCentral Administrative Tribunal that the applicant actually assumed charge and discharged duties of the higher posts on the dates asserted by her, FR 17 would require the respondents to determine whether the pay attached to those posts was correctly drawn from the respective dates of assumption. The respondents cannot invoke FR 17 to deny pay for duties actually performed; the provision may operate against the applicant only insofar as she claims the higher pay for a period during which she had not assumed the higher post.
The applicant's reliance upon FR 22 must similarly be examined with reference to the actual pay fixation. The respondents contend that the pay has already been fixed in accordance with the rules. Therefore, the real issue is not merely whether FR 22 is applicable in the abstract, but whether the pay fixation made pursuant to the Review DPC correctly implements the applicable rule from the date on which the applicant became entitled to draw the pay of the promotional post.
There is another important aspect. The applicant alleges that the initial denial of promotion was not attributable to any act or omission on her part but resulted from erroneous operation of the reservation roster, which was subsequently corrected in the ReviewCentral Administrative Tribunal DPC. Her contention is that she was otherwise eligible and willing to work in the higher posts. If this factual assertion is established from the record, the case would stand on a different footing from a case in which an employee simply receives a retrospective promotion because of later revision of seniority or administrative reorganisation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) recognised the significance of an employee being kept away from the promotional post for no fault of his/her own. However, the applicant cannot succeed merely by asserting willingness and availability. There must be positive material demonstrating that her non-promotion/non-assignment to the higher post was solely attributable to the respondents' error and that she would, but for such error, have actually assumed the promotional post during the disputed period. The decision in Union of India v. Tarsem Lal, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 145, also supports the proposition that pro forma/retrospective promotion does not, by itself, confer a right to arrears where the employee did not actually shoulder the duties and responsibilities of the higher post. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the denial of arrears while permitting the consequential benefit of deemed promotion and fixation of pension. Accordingly,Central Administrative Tribunal the respondents are correct in contending that notional promotion and monetary arrears are conceptually distinct benefits.
At the same time, the Hon’ble High Courts have repeatedly cautioned that “no work, no pay” cannot be applied as a rigid formula without examining why the employee did not work in the higher post. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while considering the line of Hon’ble Supreme Court authorities, has recognised the distinction between an employee who simply did not work in the higher post and one who was kept out of the post due to an administrative wrong for which the employee was not responsible.
In the facts of the present case, therefore, the respondents' reliance upon B.M. Jha (supra) is not sufficient by itself to defeat the entire claim of the applicant. The said judgment squarely governs the claim for salary for the period of notional retrospective promotion during which the applicant admittedly did not work in the higher post. It does not authorise withholding of the lawful difference in pay for a period during which the applicant actually discharged the duties of the promotional post. Consequently, the claim ought to be determined by identifying, separately for each promotional post:Central Administrative Tribunal
the revised/notional date of promotion;
the date of actual assumption of charge;
the date from which the applicant actually discharged duties of the higher post;
the basic pay actually drawn;
the basic pay legally admissible after the Review DPC/pay fixation; and
the consequential effect, if any, upon increments, pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits. This exercise is particularly necessary because the applicant has now placed the revised promotion orders on record, which according to her materially alter the dates of promotion.
Thus, the OA cannot be allowed merely on the broad proposition that retrospective promotion necessarily carries arrears, nor can it be dismissed wholesale on the broad proposition of “no work, no pay”. The correct approach is to apply the two principles to the two distinct periods. For the period of mere notional promotion without actual discharge of higher duties, the claim for arrears would ordinarily fail under Paluru Ramkrishnaiah (supra), O.P. GuptaCentral Administrative Tribunal (supra), A.K. Soumini (supra), Tarsem Lal (supra0 and B.M. Jha (supra). For the period during which the applicant actually discharged the duties of the promotional post, the respondents must establish that the applicant was correctly paid the pay legally admissible to that post; otherwise, the differential pay and consequential benefits cannot be denied merely by invoking the doctrine of “no work, no pay”. This distinction would, in my view, provide the strongest and legally sustainable basis for adjudicating the present OA.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:
The respondents shall examine the applicant’s claim for arrears of pay and allowances separately for the period of notional/retrospective promotion and for the period during which she actually assumed charge and discharged duties in the respective promotional posts, in the light of the observations made hereinabove.
Insofar as the period prior to the applicant’s actual assumption of the respective promotional posts is concerned, the respondents shall determine her entitlement Central Administrative Tribunalstrictly in accordance with the applicable rules and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah (supra), State of Haryana v. O.P. Gupta (supra), A.K. Soumini (supra), Union of India v. Tarsem Lal (supra) and Union of India v. B.M. Jha (supra).
In respect of the period during which the applicant actually discharged the duties of the promotional posts, the respondents shall verify the service record, the revised promotion orders placed on record as Annexures MA-1 to MA-3, and the consequential pay-fixation orders, and shall determine whether the applicant was paid the pay and allowances legally admissible to the respective posts from the dates of actual assumption of charge.
If, upon such verification, any differential amount of pay and allowances is found payable to the applicant, the same shall be calculated and released to her, along with consequential revision of increments and retiral benefits, wherever legally admissible, in accordance with the applicable rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal(v) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the respondents by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.
It is clarified that we have not directed payment of arrears merely on the basis of the retrospective/notional dates of promotion. The respondents shall determine the monetary entitlement of the applicant in accordance with the distinction drawn hereinabove between notional promotion and actual discharge of duties in the promotional post.
In the event any amount is found payable pursuant to the aforesaid exercise, the same shall be released within a further period of two months from the date of passing of the speaking order.
The above directions are mutatis mutandis applicable in the other captioned OAs as well.
The Original Application is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.Central Administrative Tribunal
There shall be no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in other connected cases as well.