P. Vijayakumar V. Union of India and Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language and Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) and Director (Implementation), Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language

OP (CAT)/100/2016

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner's claim for an upgraded pay scale as a Research Officer (Implementation) in the Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs. The petitioner argued that there was a historical parity in pay scales among similar posts across different departments, which was disrupted by the 6th Pay Commission. The respondents, including the Union of India and various government officials, contended that the pay scales were appropriately set based on the duties and responsibilities of the posts, and any change would create anomalies and disrupt the established pay structure. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court of Kerala both found no merit in the petitioner's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700430 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: I.Chuba Jamir and others vs. State of Nagaland and others, State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and others
• Laws Referred To: Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K R RAJKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T C GOVINDA SWAMY; KALA GOPI; T N SREEKALA
• Keywords: Deputation; Fundamental rights; Grade pay; Pay Scale; Historical parity; 6th CPC
• Section: 257/2012

Judgement Text

"O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1944 OP (CAT) NO. 100 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 257/2012 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 25.01.2016 PETITIONER: P. VIJAYAKUMAR,AGED 55 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNA MENON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (IMPLEMENTATION), REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFARIS, KENDRIYA BHADAN, CSEZ P.O., COCHIN-682037, Residing at SOWPARNIKA, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH, COCHIN-682 024, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI SMT.T.N.SREEKALA O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -2- RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGAUAGE, 2ND FLOOR, NDCC-II BUILDING, JAI SINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE (IMPLEMENTATION CELL), NEW DELHI-110 001. 3 THE DIRECTOR (IMPLEMENTATION) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, 2ND FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAVAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI 110 003. BY ADV SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR, C.G.C. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -3- JUDGMENT S.V.BHATTI, J. We have heard Adv.T.C.Govindaswamy for the petitioner and Mr K.R. Rajkumar, Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 2. The applicant in O.A.No.257/2012 is the petitioner. The Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal) through the impugned order dated 25.1.2016 rejected the prayers made by the petitioner. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the Original Application are briefly stated thus: While working as a Junior Hindi Translator in the Directorate of Cashewnut Development, the petitioner was considered and sent on deputation to the post of Research Officer (Impl.) in the Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs. The initial appointment on O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -4- deputation was effective from 1.8.1996 to 05.06.2000, and then the services of the petitioner were absorbed as Research Officer (Impl.). On 14.09.2007, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director (OL) in the Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs. It is further averred that under the Department of Official Language, Regional Implementation Offices are established and spread over the whole of the Country and one of such Implementation Centres is situated at Kochi. The petitioner alleges that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the various Regional Implementation Offices is to ensure effective and proper implementation of the Official Language in all the Central Government offices, Public Sector undertakings and Nationalised Banks. The Research Officers (Impl.), among other responsibilities, must prepare inspection reports if posted in C-Region in Bilingual Form (English/Hindi). Various supervisory functional obligations discharged by the Research Officers (Impl.) are set out by the petitioner in the O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -5- Original Application. The details are optional for us to advert to for disposing of the O.P. Hence omitted to state further details by observing that the Research Officer (Impl.) has several supervisory duties and functions in a Regional Centre. Research Officer (Impl.) is a Group-B Gazetted post with the nature of duties and functions discharged by the Regional Research Officer(impl.). The said post had historically established parity with the pay scale of the post of Asst. Director (OL), Central Secretariat Official Language Services, Training-Cum-Translation Officer in Central Translation Bureau, Asst.Director (OL) and Hindi Officer in various subordinate offices like Income-tax, Central Excise Department, Defence Services, Controller of Defence Accounts, Asst.Director (Language) and Asst.Director (Typing & Stenography) in the Central Hindi Training Institute, Department of Official Language etc. The posts of Asst.Director in the above said offices/Departments are historically established and performed similar duties and O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -6- functions. Further, the educational qualification for these two compared posts is same prior to 1.1.1996. The posts of Research Officer (Impl.), Asst.Director (OL), Asst. Director (Language) and Asst.Director (Typing & Stenography) carried an identical scale of pay of Rs.2000 to 3500 except the post of Training Officer which was having a lower scale of pay of Rs.2000-3200. The petitioner alleges that traditionally the Asst. Director (OL) and Hindi Officers in offices like Income Tax, Central Excise, Defence Services, Controller of Defence Accounts etc., are the different subordinate officers of the Central Government, parity in the matter of the scale of pay and educational qualification etc., with Research Officer(Impl.), Regional Implementation Offices of the Department of Official Language have been maintained. With effect from 1.1.2006, the historical parity alleged by the petitioner was upset and the Asst.Director (OL) and the Hindi Officers in offices like Income Tax, Central Excise, Defence Services, Controller of Defence Accounts etc., were upgraded O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -7- to Group-A posts with the scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500 PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. The Research Officers (Impl.) having supervisory and inspectorial jurisdiction over the Asst. Directors (OL) in the offices have been singled out for differential treatment and continue to be placed as Group-B Gazetted Post with G.P. of Rs.4600/-. Therefore, the ground is that equals being treated unequally, negation of fundamental rights claimed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner prayed for implementation of 6th CPC in paragraph-7.19.68. 3. The respondents in the reply statement stated that the Regional Implementation Offices were established as subordinate/attached offices under the Department of Official Language in 1980 to implement the Official Language policy of the Union in various Central Government Ministries/Departments/Offices etc. The Research Officer (Impl.) post has a historical party with the post of Asst.Director (OL) in Central Secretariat Official Language O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -8- Services, Asst.Directors in Central Hindi Training Institute/Hindi Teaching Scheme and Training-cum- Translation Officer in Central Translation Bureau, Asst.Director (OL) and Hindi Officers in various subordinate offices of the Central Government. It is stated that for all these posts, minimum educational qualification is required for recruitment and the nature of work and duties are comparable. The posts, viz. Research Officers (Impl.) on the one hand and the Asst.Director (OL) etc., on the other hand, were classified as Group-B Gazetted posts before the 5th Pay Commission. On the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, the pay scale of Asst.Director (OL), CSOLS was upgraded from Rs.6500-200-10500 to Rs.7500-250-12000 because the pay scale of analogous/identical posts of Asst. Director in Central Hindi Training Institute, Hindi Teaching Scheme and Translation/Training Officer in Central Translation Bureau were upgraded by the 5th pay commission to Rs.7550-250-12000. On the contrary, the posts of Research O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -9- Officers (Impl.) and Asst.Director (OL) and Hindi officers in various subordinate offices of the Central Government were given a replacement pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500. A demand seeking identical pay scales by similarly designated posts existing outside the CSOLS cadre in various subordinate offices was made. The Government of India allowed an upgraded scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500/-. 4. After examining the case, Govt. of India has allowed an upgraded scale of pay of 8000-13500/- (PB-3, GP 5400/-) to Hindi Officers, Assistant Directors (OL) in various subordinate offices, Assistant Directors (Language) and Assistant Director (Hindi Typing/Shorthand) of CHTI, Training-cum-Translation Officers of Central Translation Bureau and following orders have been issued revising/upgrading pay scales in respect of different categories of posts dealing with an official language. 5. The proposal of the Research Officer (Implementation) for grant of grade pay of Rs.5400 and again O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -10- along with a revised proposal for grant of pay scale equivalent to that of 7500-12000 grade pay Rs.4800/- at par with pay scale of Research Officer (Head Quarters), Department of Official Language. The proposals were examined by the Government but have not agreed to on the following grounds : (i) The initial proposal was rejected stating that grant of same pay scale to AD and RO in same cadre may create an anomaly. (ii) Revised proposal for grant of PB-2 Rs.9300- 34800+GP 4800 to Research Officer was rejected on the ground that in absence of any specific recommendations by the successive pay commissions is not acceptable and that there is no anomaly in pay scale of R.O. who are to be placed in the normal replacement scale/pay band and Grade Pay. (iii) And finally the revised proposal was not found acceptable given that the extant pay structure in the regional implementation offices with GP of Rs.4600 to Research Officer, Rs.5400 to Ads and Rs.6600 to DDs is rational.” 6. It is also stated that the replacement scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 was given to Research Officer (Implementation), Asst. Director (OL) and Hindi Officer in O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -11- various subordinate offices of the Central Government. The other objection on the historical parity claim and resultant upgradation is that the pay scale of Research Officer in Head Quarters in the Department of Official Language has not been upgraded by the 6th CPC which means that prior to 6th CPC, these posts were already in the revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000. Prior to 1.1.2006, there was no parity between the pay scales of the Research Officer, Head Quarters and Research Officer (Impl.) in the Regional Implementation Officers of the Department of Official Language. Upgradation of the pay scale of Research Officers in the Regional Implementation Office of DOL is not justified. The Tribunal, through the order under challenge, rejected the claim and the operative portion reads thus: “9. The post of Research Officers (Implementation) in the Headquarters were already in the scale of Assistant Director. The VI CPC merely gave them the replacement scale of Rs.7500-12000. Hence the parity of scales for the post of Research Officer was not a case of historical parity and so this ground does not stand. The applicant's contention is that if Grade O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -12- Pay of Research Officer (Implementation) is upgraded to Grade Pay of Assistant Director (Implementation), the pay of Assistant Director (Implementation) could be upgraded to next higher PB-3 Rs.10000-15200+ GP Rs.6600/-. This would only create a further anomaly vis-a-vis other posts of Assistant Director who are in GP Rs.5400/- who would thereafter make a claim for parity with Assistant Director (Implementation), thereby making this merry go round ride unending in terms of litigation. Changing the pay scale of the feeder grade to make it equivalent to the promotional grade does not appear to be the appropriate solution. Further, since implementation of Hindi as a national language is a national mandate, these posts exist in all the States in the country and upgrading it in Kerala State alone would be discriminatory as it will create a distinction between members of the same class. The Apex Court in I.Chuba Jamir and others vs. State of Nagaland and others (2009) 15 SCC 169 had held that merger of posts/cadres is a matter to be addressed by the State Government/Administration and ordinarily it does not warrant any interference by the Court. 10. Promotion is a normal incidence of service. Government as a model employer should provide every cadre an opportunity for advancement. The respondents bring to our notice that Research Officer (Implementation) has an upward career movement as Assistant Director (Implementation), Deputy Director, Joint Director and it is not as if the cadre is denied any avenues for promotion. It is not the mandate of the Tribunal to issue directions to fix pay scales. The applicant nowhere makes out a case that there O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -13- are no opportunities for promotion and hence this upgradation is crucial to his career advancement. 11. The Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Charanjit Singh and others (2006) 9 SCC 321 had observed: “…..The application of the principle \"equal pay for equal work\" requires considerations of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus the normal applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere.\" 12. Hence the relief sought for in this O.A is declined. But the applicant can present his case before the VII CPC Anomaly Committee who would consider it on merit from the local/state/national perspective and compare it with other similarly placed cadres for parity purpose and also from the point of view of the promotion ladder which if disturbed is likely to promote dissatisfaction to other levels in the hierarchy.” 7. Adv.Govindaswamy, to bring home the argument on parity of scale between the officers referred to above, O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -14- invited our attention to Annexure-A1, the comparative statement prepared by the petitioner, and contends that historically the qualifications, functions and duties are substantially same and similar and denying to petitioner the upgraded scale on par with the compared officers is unconstitutional. He prays for a declaration that historically these two posts are one and the same and consequently, the upgradation may be extended. 8. Adv.R.Rajkumar appearing for the respondents contends that the parity of posts, scales, equivalences etc., normally are matters for experts to consider and decide. The scope of judicial review is very limited. The proposal has been considered by the competent authorities and through Annexure-R6 dated 10.12.2009 refers to Annexure- R8 which reads as follows: O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -15- “Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) Department of Official Language may please refer to their File No.12013/03/2006-OL regarding upgradation of the pay scale of Research Officer (Implementation) in Regional Implementation Offices of DOL from the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the pre-revise et scale of Rs.7500- 12000. 2. The matter has been considered in the light of all the eight grounds given by DOL in justification of their proposal. On a detailed examination of the matter, this Department is of the view that there is no justification in the proposal of DOL to grant grade pay of Rs 4800 in the pay band PB-2 to ROS in its Regional Implementation Offices on any ground. Further, it is noted that consequent upon the issue of this Department's O.M. dated 13.11.2009. the posts of ROS in Regional Implementation Offices of DOL have now come to lie in the revised pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 and no further upgradation is justified. Also, it is noted that DOL is repeatedly proposing 'rationalization of the pay structure of ROS in Regional Implementation Offices of that Department. In this connection, it is clarified that the extant pay structure in Regional Implementation offices comprising grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 for ROS; grade pay of Rs.5400 in the pay band PB-3 for ADS; and grade pay of Rs.6600 in the pay band PB-3 for O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -16- DDS is not irrational and it does not need further rationalization. 3. A perusal of DOL's referring note indicates that while resubmitting the file for reconsideration, it has been alleged that Department of Expenditure has rejected the proposal in a cursory manner. Further, through its note, DOL has conveyed its opinion to the affect that Finance Ministry has not considered their proposal with the seriousness that is necessary to consider it. In this context, it is stated that the comments of Department of OL are absolutely uncalled for and should not have been brought on record. 4. This issues with the approval of Joint Secretary (Per). (ALOK SAXENA) DIRECTOR (IC) AS & FA (H), Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi MoF/D/o Expenditure, IC U.O. No. 10/1/2010-IC dated 5.2.2010” O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -17- 9. The petitioner herein produced Annexure-R9 pay scale of Group B Gazetted Officers Posts of Official Language, which reads as follows: “The matter was discussed with the then Secretary (OL) on 18.07.2011. Director (Impl), US (Services), SO (Trng.) and SO (Policy) were also present during the discussion. It was desired that historical background and functional justification may also be incorporated in the note. It was also suggested that grant of Grade pay of Rs.4800/- to Research Officers may be examined. In this regard it may be stated here that keeping view of the historical background detailed in para 3 and 4 above seeking pay parity with comparable posts as they existed prior to implementation of recommendations of the 5th CPC and the justification given in para 10 and 11 above, it appears that demand of Research Officer for grant of grade pay of Rs.5400 is justified. xxx xxx xxx “Accordingly, if approved, we may refer the matter to MoF D/o Expenditure for their kind re- consideration for grant of grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 to Research Officer (Impl.) Department of Official Language in the light of discussion in para 10 and 11 above through IFD, MHA.” 10. And finally, the re-iteration of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure in Annexure-R10 as follows: O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -18- Ministry of Finance Department of Expenditure E.III B Branch. **** Ministry of Home Affairs may please refer to their notes on pre-page regarding upgradation of the pay scale of Research Officer (Implementation) of Regional Implementation Offices of Rajya Bhasha Vibhag from Rs.6500- 10500 to Rs.8000-13500 corresponding to the revised pay structure of GP of Rs,5400 in the pay band PB-3. 2. The matter has been examined in this Department and our earlier stand communicated vide this Department's U.O. number 10/1/2010-IC dated 5.2.2010 is reiterated. 3. JS(Pers.) has seen. (Shivani Dutt) Under Secretary AS & FA(Home) Min. of Fin.(Exp.) U.O.No.19(11)/E.III.B/2012 dated 18.6.2012” 11. We have taken the trouble of detailing the basis for the claim, the comparative statement and the view of the Ministry of Expenditure. By keeping the principle laid down O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -19- by the Supreme Court in perspective in I.Chuba Jamir and others v State of Nagaland and others (supra) and State of Haryana & others v Charanjit Singh and others (supra), it can safely state that the petitioner is firstly claiming a declaratory relief of historical parity with Asst. Director (OL), Central Secretariat Official Language Services, Training-Cum- Translation Officer in Central Translation Bureau, Asst.Director (OL) and Hindi Officer in various subordinate offices like Income-tax, Central Excise Department, Defence Services, Controller of Defence Accounts, Asst.Director (Language) and Asst.Director (Typing & Stenography) in the Central Hindi Training Institute, Department of Official Language etc. and then confer the upgradation to which the petitioner is entitled to. The 6th Pay Commission has not made any recommendation in this behalf. The Ministry of Expenditure examined the claim and, for the reasons recorded. The Tribunal, in the order under review, as already excerpted, given cogent reasons for rejecting the prayers. O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -20- The findings recorded by the Tribunal are tenable, and this Court, in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not want to re-work the entire scheme and find out the historical parity by implication made available to upgradation not considered by the 6th pay commission. The Original Petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE Sd/- BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE css/ O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -21- APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 100/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25 JANUARY 2016 IN OA NO.257/2012 RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.257/2012 DATED 15TH MARCH 2012 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES, FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 26 JULY 2013 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN OA NO.257/2012 BEFORE THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 4 NOV 2013 IN OA NO.254/2012 FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25 JULY 2007 IN OA NO.593/2005 AND CONNECTED CASES RENDERED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF TABULATED FORM SHOWING COMPARISON OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OFFICERS POST (GROUP B GAZETTED) IN VARIOUS OTHER OFFICES ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF PARAGRAPH 7.19.67 AND 7.19.68 OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE VI CPC ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING F.NO.1/1/2008- IC DATED 27/11/08, AS PUBLISHED IN SWAMY'S NEWS, MARCH 2009 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 17/7/2009, ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 1-9- 2011, ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19-1- 2012, ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED SUBMITTED BY ONE OF THE APPLICANTS COLLEAGUES (LESS ITS ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED DURING THE YEAR 2011 O.P.(CAT) No.100 of 2016 -22- ANNEXURE R1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECRUITMENT RULES OF RESEARCH OFFICER ANNEXURE R2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/26-9-2008 ANNEXURE R3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/6/2009 ANNEXURE R4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF PROPOSAL OF UPGRADATION OF PAY SCALE OF REGIONAL OFFICES (IMPLEAMENTATION) ANNEXURE R5 AND R6 PHOTOCOPIES OF THE REVISED PROPOSALS IN NOTE FORM BEARING FILE NOTE NO.12013/03/20060L(IMPL-1) DATED 1-6-09 AND 10-12-09 ANNEXURE R7 AND R8 PHOTOCOPIES OF DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE NOTES BEARING NOS.ICU.O.NO.10/1/2009-IC DATED 30/9/2009 AND ICU.O.NO.10/1/2010-C DATED 5/2/10 ANNEXURE R9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAY SCALE OF GROUP B GAZETTED OFFICERS POSTS OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE ANNEXURE R10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EXPENTAURE NOTE. ANNEXURE R11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 24/11/08 "