AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Dr.T.Amarnath Goud, J)
Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned senior GA appearing for the respondent.
By means of filing this writ appeal, the appellant herein, challenged the judgment and order dated 23.07.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this High Court in WP(C) 364 of 2026.
Shortly stated, the appellant is a widow. She was appointed in government service w.e.f. 07.10.2006 in the post of Peon, Gr.III on fixed-pay basis under die-in-harness scheme and was posted in the office of Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Agartala. The husband of the appellant died leaving behind the appellant, one minor daughter and aged mother. The appellant was regularized in service vide Memo dated 15.12.2011 after rendering more than five years continuous service. Thereafter, vide transfer Order dated 21.05.2026, the appellant was transferred from the office of Executive Engineer, Resource Division, PWD (R&B), Panchamukh, Agartala, West Tripura to the office of the Assistant Engineer, Dharmanagar, PWD (R&B), North Tripura. It was the grievance of the appellant that the transfer order was issued without considering the appellant’s medical condition. It was further grievance of the appellant that the transfer was discriminatory as similarly situated employees were accommodated within their respective home district while the appellant was transferred outside her home leaping three Districts. Being aggrieved, the appellant, being petitioner, preferred a writ petition being WP(C) 364 of 2026, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 23.07.2026. Hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant. For convenience, the relevant part of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2026 is reproduced hereunder:
“14.Admittedly, all the transfers are made in public interest. The petitioner in the writ petition and also at the time of hearing could not place any material before this Court to show that there was any violation of statutory rule by the authority for which her order of transfer needs to be interfered with and set aside; save and accept the ground that she was suffering from illness and relied upon some medical papers.
15.I have also perused the documents. There is no evidence on record that she is admitted in hospital or she requires immediate surgical intervention.
16.Furthermore, the petitioner was all along posted at Agartala from the date of her entry in the service. So, there is no scope on the part of the petitioner also to say that the authority has got no jurisdiction to issue any order of transfer. Admittedly, in the counter affidavit so many allegations have been asserted by the respondents. But it is not the case of the petitioner that out of malice she has been transferred. The petitioner, in course of hearing, could not place any other materials on record that she has been transferred in violation of rule of law for which the interference of the Court is required.
17.Here, in the case at hand, the petitioner at the time of hearing before this Court could not place any material to interfere with the transfer order dated 21.05.2026 by which she has been transferred from Agartala to the office of Assistant Engineer PWD (R & B), Dharmanagar and as such, I do not find any scope to issue any mandamus in this regard.
18.Furthermore, the aforesaid observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-noted case, it appears to this Court that there is very limited scope on the part of the Court to issue any mandamus for staying any order of transfer if it is issued by the authority in the public interest.
In the result the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed being devoid of merit.”
Mr. A Pal, learned counsel for the appellant relying on the transfer order submitted that by the said transfer order other similarly situated employees were also transferred to their nearby place of posting except the appellant. He has also submitted that the appellant during her entire service period has served with due diligence without any blemish. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is suffering from chronic disease for a continuous period followed by neurological complications due to which she was treated in and out of the State. Learned counsel has further submitted that the transfer order is not an ordinary administrative transfer order but passed in arbitrary and discriminatory manner. In fine, learned counsel has sought for and interference of this court by setting aside the transfer order.
Per contra, Mr. Gautam, learned senior GA appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the said transfer order has not affected any of the legal rights of the appellant and the said transfer is made in public interest / administrative exigency.
It has further been submitted that since the date of the joining the appellant was all along posted at Agartala. So, at this stage she cannot take the plea that she cannot be transferred from Agartala to any other station. Learned senior GA has urged this court that the judgment and order dated 23.07.2026 passed by this Hon’ble High Court requires no interference.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the materials available on record..
While dealing with the writ petition, the Single Judge, in Para 6 of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2026, has been categorically observed, as under:
“6.The writ petition has been contested by the respondents denying the assertions of the petitioner. In Para 6 & 7 of the counter affidavit it was asserted by the respondents as under:-
“6.That, in regard to averments made by the petitioner in the Para No.2, 3 & 4 of the Writ petition, it is stated that, the petitioner was directed to join in Government Service vide Office Order No.F.6(1)-PWD(E-II)/95(P-IV) dated 07-10-2006 of the Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B) under Die-in-harness scheme in the post of Peon, Grade-III in Office of the Executive Engineer, Capital Complex Division, PWD as per terms & condition mentioned in the Offer of appointment issued under Memo. even No. dated 07/09/2006 and the general terms & condition applicable to the temporary Government employee. She has accepted the terms & condition as laid down in the offer of appointment & accordingly joined on 09/10/2006 in Office of the Executive Engineer, Capital Complex Division, PWD in the capacity of Peon, Grade-III. Thereafter in pursuance of Memorandum No.F.10(2)-FIN(G)/05/Part-1 dated 16-10-2007 of the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, the Service of the Petitioner was regularized on completion of 5 years of continuous service & accordingly regular pay scale for the post of Peon was provided to her w.e.f 09/10/2011 vide Office Order No.259/ Memo No.5(4)-PC/86/Pt-XII/10,121-28 dated 15/12/11 of T.A to the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, PWD, Agartala (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition). Further, from the Pay Bill records it is apparent that, at present the basic Pay of the Petitioner is Rs.27,200/- [Cell-19, Level-1 as Per Tripura State Pay Matrix, 2018].
Further, it is relevant from the Office records that during her Service life the Petitioner got transferred from Office of the Executive Engineer, Capital Complex Division, PWD on 08/01/2010 & accordingly joined in office of the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, PWD, Agartala on 11/01/2010. Thereafter, the Petitioner got again transferred from office of the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, PWD, Agartala on 07/12/2011 & accordingly she joined in office of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala on 08/12/2011 in pursuance to the Office Order No.F.6(3)-PWD(E-II)/95(III) dated 02/12/2011 of the Engineering Officer to the Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B) followed by the Office Order No.249/ No.F.3(68)-PC/2010/9820-25, dated 07/12/2011 of the TA to the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, PWD. Further, due to scarcity of Group-D staffs the service of the petitioner were temporarily placed in office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (WR) vide Office Order No.183/No.F.1(47)/CE/PWD/WR(E)/ 2018(S)/4239-4244 dated 30/12/2022 of the Engineering Officer & Deputy Secretary, Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD(WR). Later on again she was reverted back in her original place of posting i.e., office of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala & placed her at Office of the Assistant Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD(WR) Agartala.
Copy of the Office Order No.F.6(1)-PWD(E-II)/95(P-IV) dated 07-10-2006 of the Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B) is annexed as Annexure-R/1.
Copy of the Office Order No.249/ No.F.3(68)-PC/2010/9820-25, dated 07/12/2011 of the TA to the Superintending Engineer, Planning Circle, PWD is annexed as Annexure-R/2.
Copy of the Office Order No.183/No.F.1(47)/CE/PWD/WR(E)/ 2018(S)/4239-4244 dated 30/12/2022 of the Engineering Officer & Deputy Secretary, Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD(WR) is annexed as Annexure-R/3.
Now, Of late for the interest of the Public Service the Petitioner were transferred from office of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala to Office of the Assistant Engineer, Dharmanagar Sub Division,PWD(R&B), Dharmanagar vide Office Order No.6(1)-PWD(E)/2026/2468-505 dated 21/05/2026 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD, Government of Tripura (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition).
It is pertinent to be mentioned here that, as per terms and condition laid down in the offer of appointment it is mentioned that " The appointment carries the liability with the appointee to serve in any part of the state of Tripura". And, in the instant case also while joining in the Government Service under Public Works Department, the Petitioner has accepted the terms & condition as laid down in the Offer of appointment for the post of Peon, Grade-III, Group-D & accordingly she joined in in Office of the Executive Engineer, Capital Complex Division, PWD under Die-in-harness scheme. Now, she must abide by the decision of the Government to serve at Dharmanagar which is situated within the geographical territory of Tripura and have a good communication by both road & train with the West Tripura District with a good medical & other essential facilities.
Further, the State Respondents completely denied with the statement made at para -3 (page-5) of the Writ Petition wherein it is mentioned that "she has been discharging her duties with utmost sincerity, honesty and dedication to the complete satisfaction of the authorities concerned". But, in actual practice her performance in Office of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala is purely non satisfactorily. In this context State Respondents would like to state that she was called off explanation for non-disposal of Official responsibility vide letter No.5(2)(Pt-III)/AE/RSD/AGT/810-12, dated 24/03/2012 & accordingly her representation which was not at all convincing by the Competent Authority was forwarded to the DDO & The Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala for necessary action vide Letter No.5(2)(P-III)/AE/RSD/AGT/10-11 dated 04/04/2012 of the Assistnat Engineer, Resource Sub Division, Panchamukh, PWD(WR), Agartala.
Copy of the Letter No.5(2)(P-III)/AE/RSD/AGT/10-11dated 04/04/2012 of the Assistnat Engineer, Resource Sub Division, Panchamukh, PWD(WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure-R/4.
Furthermore, vide Memorandum No.RESO/DN/P(D)/13/3083 dated 10/03/2015 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala it is evident that, the Petitioner didn't perform her duty with the utmost satisfaction of the Higher Authority and used to leave office at her own wish even without taking the prior permission of the higher authority while Audit Work was going on.
Copy of the Memorandum No.RESO/DN/P(D)/13/3083 dated 10/03/2015 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh,PWD(WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure-R/5.
Further, it is also submitted that on several occasions the Petitioner were found unauthorized absent from discharging Government duties which can be reflected from the following letters of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD(WR), Agartala:-
1.Letter No.F.RESO/DN/P(D)/13/26-28 dated 23/04/2019.
2.Letter No.F.RESO/DN/P(A)/13/59-61 dated 17/04/2023
3.Letter No.F.RESO/DN/P(D)/13/ dated 29/08/2023.
Copy of the Letter No.F.RESO/DN/P(D)/13/26-28 dated 23/04/2019 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD(WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure- R/6.
Copy of the Letter No.F.RESO/DN/P(A)/13/59-61 dated 17/04/2023 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD(WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure-R/7.
Copy of the Letter No.F.RESO/DN/P(D)/13/dated 29/08/2023 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD(WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure-R/8.
Furthermore from the letter No.F.RESO/DN/P(D)/33/2705 dated 07/03/2023, of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD(WR), Agartala, it is apparent that, the Petitioner has regretted the Office Order of the Head of the Department communicated vide letter No.F.1(47)/CE/PWD/WR(E)/ 2018(S)/4949 dated 25/01/2023 of the Chief Engineer, PWD (WR) & denied to receive the same which is a gross violation as per Rule (3) of Tripura State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.
Copy of the No.F.RESO/DN/P(D)/33/2705 dated 07/03/2023 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure-R/9.
7.That, in regard to averments made by the petitioner in the Para No.5,6,7,8,9 &10 of the writ petition, the statement made at para 5 (page-6) of the Writ Petition is a false & arbitrary& misleading the Hon'ble High Court from the actual facts. In actual practice after issuance of the Office Order No.6(1)-PWD(E)/2026/2468-505 dated 21/05/2026 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD, Government of Tripura (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) the petitioner has sent one duly filled in Earn Leave Application Form dated 22/05/2026 on medical ground seeking Earn leave for 16 (sixteen) days w.e.f 22/05/26 to 06/06/2026, suffixed 07/06/2026 as a Government Holiday & the same have been received by Office of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala on 22/05/2026. Being, 23rd May, 2026 & 24th May, 2026 was a Government Holiday, the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala, i.e., the State Respondents No.4 on humanitarian ground had sanctioned the Earn leave for 16 (sixteen) days w.e.f 22/05/26 to 06/06/2026, suffixed 07/06/2026 as a Government Holiday on Medical Ground vide Office Order No.27/ No.F.EE/RESO/DN/P(D)/13/392-95 dated 25/05/2026.
It is pertinent to be mentioned here that, as per Rule 18(1) of Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1986 "An application for leave on medical certificate shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in Form 3 given by anauthorized Medical Attendant or a Registered Medical Practitioner, defining as clearly as possible the nature and probable duration of the illness"
But, in the instant case, the Petitioner didn't submit any Illness Certificate in the Prescribed Form-3 duly signed by an authorized Medical Attendant or a Registered Medical Practitioner stating the nature of disease for which leave or complete rest is required. Moreover the Petitioner had submitted a fictitious Prescription dated 21/05/2026 from a Registered Medical Practitioner in support of her Earn Leave Application dated 22/05/2026 in which Doctor didn't mention anything about complete rest for which Earn leave can be granted. It is deemed to be a regular medical checkup & the Petitioner with an ill motive is taking the advantage of Earn leave on Medical Ground to deny the Government Order as she did the same thing earlier in several times.
Copy of the Earn Leave Application Dated 22/05/2026 of the Petitioner is annexed as Annexure-R/10.
Copy of the Prescription dated 21/05/2026 of the Registered Medical Practitioner is annexed Annexure-R/11.
From the above discussion it can safely be concluded that, the Petitioner was not on leave w.e.f 21/05/2026 for 07 (seven) days on account of severe stomach pain and acute illness. Hence, the statement made by the Petitioner is false & arbitrary & misleading the Hon'ble High Court from the actual facts.
Copy of the Office Order No.27/ No.F.EE/RESO/DN/P(D)/13/392-95 dated 25/05/2026 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure-R/12.
Further, as per Rule 18(3) of Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1986 regarding grant of Leave on Medical Certificates to Government Servant it is clearly stated that "The authority competent to grant leave may, at its discretion secure a second medical opinion by requesting a Government Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon or staff Surgeon, to have the applicant medically examined on the earliest possible date."
Therefore, Hon'ble High Court it its discretions may kindly allow the State Respondents to send the Petitioner before the Medical Board for further examination prior to sanction further leave on medical ground.
Copy of the Rule 18(1) & Rule 18(3) of Tripura State Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1986 is annexed as Annexure-R/13.
Furthermore it is submitted that, In Para 6 at page -7 as well as Para -9 of Page 8 of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner try to represent herself as a Chronically ill Widow & medically venerable employee. But, in actual practice the Petitioner fails to furnish any kind of Hospitalization Certificate or Discharge Certificate obtained from any Government Hospital or Private Hospital suffering from any chronic disease for the last 10 (ten) years,.
Further, it is apparent from page No.27 of the Writ Petition, that the Petitioner had submitted a Discharge Certificate dated 17/10/2023 obtained from Tripura Medical College & Dr. B.R Ambedkar Memorial Teaching Hospital, Hapania, Agartala, West Tripura wherein it is reflected that, the Petitioner is a married women & her name is registered as Indrani Das Dey, instead of Indrani Das Sarkar, W/o Shri Amal Dey.
From this observation it can safely be concluded that, either the Petitioner submitted a fabricated Discharge Certificate of another patient whose name is in actual practice is Indrani Das Dey W/o Shri Amal Dey or, in actual practice she is a married women, not a helpless widow who is clinically unfit.
Henceforth, it will be a submission from the State Respondents before the Hon'ble High Court to direct the Petitioner to appear before the Medical Board to examine her physical condition before passing any coercive Order against the impugned transfer order dated 21.05.2026 issued vide Memo No. F.6(1)-PWD(E)/2026/2468-505.
Further, the State Respondents humbly submit that, the transferring to the same post in another location or changing posts within the same cadre is a standard feature of Government Service. Employees holding transferable positions generally do not have the legal right to remain in one location indefinitely, provided the transfer is made for administrative reasons and in the public interest. Transfer is an exigency of service. A government employee has no choice in the matter of posting. Transfers are to be done only in administrative exigencies and in public interest.
It may be submitted that, if an organization has to run efficiently, sufficient flexibility is required to be given to the authority in matters of transfer of its employers; otherwise the administrative machinery may collapse. Necessary adjustments and accommodation for keeping administrative machinery in smooth gear is required at times.
Transfer order does not affect any of her legal rights and Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting, which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency.
Now, considering the above factor into account & also keeping the humanitarian value side by side, vide Office Order No.26/ No.F.EE/RESO/DN/P(D)/13/381-91 dated 25/05/2026 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala, i.e., State Respondents No.4 has released the Petitioner from his Office on 25/05/2026 (afternoon) after sanctioning of 16 (sixteen) days of Earn Leave on Medical Ground w.e.f 22/05/2026 to 06/06/2026 suffixing 07/06/2026 as Government Holiday & directed the Petitioner to join at her new place of posting i.e, Office of the Assistant Engineer, Dharmanagar Sub Division, PWD(R&B) after expiry of leave. But, till date the Petitioner hasn't complied with the Government Order.
Copy of the Office Order No.26/ No.F.EE/RESO/DN/P(D)/ 13/381-91 dated 25/05/2026 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure-R/14.
Of late the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura vide Interim Order dated 19/06/2026 delivered in WP(C) No. 364 of 2026 directed that "In the meantime, the petitioner is advised to file proper representation to the appropriate authority. However, till next date no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents". Accordingly, the Petitioner has submitted an application dated 19/05/2026 addressed to the Chief Engineer, PWD (R&B) & the same has been received by Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD(R&B) on 19/06/2026 seeking sympathetic consideration & modification of transfer order dated 21/05/2026.
It is pertinent to be mentioned here that, Prior to issuance of the interim Order dated 19/06/2026 delivered in WP(C) No. 364 of 2026, the State Respondent No.4 has already released the Petitioner from his office Vide Office Order No.26/No.F.EE/RESO/DN/P(D)/13/381-91 dated 25/05/2026 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala & directed the Petitioner to join at her new place of posting i.e, Office of the Assistant Engineer, Dharmanagar Sub Division, PWD(R&B) after expiry of leave. Subsequently the Service Book alongwith Last Pay Certificate in respect of the Petitioner was sent to the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B), Dharmanagar Division vide Letter No. F.RESO/DN/P(D)/13/449 dated 02/06/2026 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala & the same has been received by the Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B), Dharmanagar Division who is the DDO & Controlling Officer of Office of the Assistant Engineer, Dharmanagar Sub Division, PWD(R&B). Further, the Executive Engineer, PWD(R&B), Dharmanagar Division vide letter No.F.5E-454/EE/DD/1819 dated 18/06/2026 has acknowledged the receipt of Service Book & Last Pay Certificate in respect of Smt. Indrani Das Sarkar, MTS.
It is further submitted that transfer is an exigency of service. A government employee has no choice in the matter of posting. Transfers are to be done only in administrative exigencies rotationally and in the public interest. Accordingly, the matter has been communicated to the Petitioner in her Residential Address as reflected in her Service Book vide Letter No.F.6(1)-PWD(E)/2026(S)/4267-4268 Dated 22/06/2026 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD(R&B), Government of Tripura.
Copy of the Letter No. F.RESO/DN/P(D)/13/449 dated 02/06/2026 of the Executive Engineer, Resource Division, Panchamukh, PWD (WR), Agartala is annexed as Annexure-R/15.
Copy of the Letter No.F.5E-454/EE/DD/1819 dated 18/06/2026 of the Executive Engineer, Dharmanagar Division, PWD (R&B) is annexed as Annexure-R/16.
Copy of the Letter No.F.6(1)-PWD(E)/2026(S)/4267-4268 Dated 22/06/2026 of the Deputy Secretary, PWD(R&B), Government of Tripura is annexed as Annexure-R/17.”
In the counter affidavit, the respondents-State has
categorically stated that the transfer of the petitioner-applicant has been made in public interest. Furthermore, in the writ petition, though the petitioner-appellant took the stand of her physical ailment followed by medication, but, no documents related to her recent treatment could be submitted so as to substantiate her claim.
Admittedly, all the transfers are made in public interest. The appellant at the time of hearing of the writ petition could not place any material before the learned Single Judge to show that there was any violation of statutory rule by the authority for which her order of transfer needs to be interfered with and set aside. The appellant has only raised the grounds of her illness and relied on some medical papers. While arguing, this Court asked learned counsel for the appellant to place the recent medical documents to prove that the appellant is suffering from acute disease, but learned counsel failed to place on record any medical evidence to lead this court for interfering with the impugned judgment and order. From the medical documents annexed to this appeal, it is revealed that the appellant was referred outside the State in the year 2013 and all the medical documents are prior to three years. Now, it is 2026. No recent medical document has been placed on record to support the medical condition claimed by the appellant. Courts require fresh and valid proof to verify ongoing health issues during legal proceeding, but this court finds no fresh medical certificates or hospital records.
Under settled service and administrative law, a transfer of a government employee can be validly made on grounds of administrative exigency and public interest. The transfer of an employee is entirely upon the competent authority/employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his/her present place of posting. Transfer is not only an incident but an essential condition of service. It does not affect the conditions of service in any manner. The employee does not have any vested right to be posted at a particular place. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and the Court cannot interfere with a transfer/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. An order of transfer of an employee is a part of the service conditions and such order of transfer cannot be interfered with by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer.
In the present case, perusal of the record pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner-appellant, nowhere suggests that she has been transferred by way of punishment rather perusal of the record suggests that the petitioner-appellant since the date of her joining was all along posted at Agartala . Further, the appellant all through contended that she is under continuous medication, but no documents related to her recent treatment have not been placed on record. However, at the cost of repetition, it may be again reiterated that transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim as a matter of right to be posted/transferred at a particular place of choice and it is the complete domain of the employer to consider the suitability of the employee for posting him/her in a particular place.
In view of the detailed discussions made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the appeal and as such the same stands dismissed.
As a sequel, pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.