JUDGMENT
Shankar Prasad, Member (A)
1. Aggrieved by the action of respondents in not regularising his services, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. He has sought for the following reliefs:
“(A) that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to allow/admit this application through out.
(B) that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the name of applicant for Group-D post (peon) for regularisation from April, 1994 or from the next relevant date with all consequential benefits available under the service rules, including the revision of pay scale, annual increments, promotion, if his junior is promoted.
(C) may be pleased to award the cost of this application from respondents; (D) that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs which may deemed to be just, fair and expedient in view of nature, facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant was engaged as daily wage employee at SRO Baroda in April, 1986 and his services were terminated on 15.4.1988. The applicant had challenged the said order of termination as not being in accordance with provision of Industrial Disputes Act. The order that an ‘Industrial Dispute’ does not exist was challenged by the applicant by filing SCA 6377/90. It was disposed of on 29.11.1990 with a direction to the respondents to refer the matter to appropriate forum. Subsequent to that decision Industrial Dispute ITG 17/91 was raised before the Industrial Tribunal. It was decided by order dated 26.2.1992.
It appears from Para 5 of the said order that the applicant had been informed by the respondents that his services will have to be terminated without giving any notice as his name was not sponsored by employment exchange. It had also been contended that the applicant has been appointed as daily wager and had not completed 240 days in a year and hence he was not entitled for regular appointment or any relief of that nature. It was also asserted that he had actively assisted the Head Clerk in accepting bribe. The respondents did not produce any evidence before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that employers have produced no evidence to show that he was not appointed against a permanent post. The Tribunal held “the action on terminating the services of concerned worker from 28.4.1988 is illegal and that concerned workman shall be reinstated in his post which he was holding at the time of his removal from service. Under the special circumstances no order as to cost.”
3. The respondents had challenged the said order vide O.A. 466/92. It had amongst others been contended that the applicant was engaged only for a specific work of filling water in water cooler for limited number of hours only on requisite number of days. He had not completed 240 days in previous 12 months and Section 25 of the I.D. Act was not applicable. He was found involved with another employee in bribe case and the disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against the other employee. The said O.A. was dismissed on 30.11.92. The Tribunal held:
“When the application came up for admission, we noticed that the Tribunal has held that in either view of the matter, the termination is bad meaning thereby that if the workman had completed 240 days of service as stated by him, termination of services without following the procedure laid down in the I.D. Act will make the termination bad in law and alternatively if he had not completed 240 days, his services could not have been terminated on account of alleged misconduct on his part, without following due procedure for dismissing the applicant by way of penalty. In this view of the matter, we see no irregularity in the award given by the Industrial Tribunal and therefore, we find that the applicant have not made out any case for our interfering with the matter under Article 227.”
4. It appears that MCA 2122/1992 was preferred before the Hon’ble High Court and the applicant was thereafter taken in service vide order dated 28.1.1993 w.e.f. 25.1.1993.
The respondents have informed the Union vide their letter dated 18.4.1996 that on receipt of wanting information further action for confirmation of applicant will be taken. It appears from Annexure A-12 that the applicant had been asked to appear before RPFC, Ahmedabad on 23.7.96 for regularisation.
5. The case of the applicant in brief is that he ought to have been regularised as he had fulfilled all the conditions for regularisation. In any case, the applicant is entitled to be absorbed as per letter dated 16.9.1993 of Department of Personnel and Training. The non-regularisation of the applicant from April 1994 is illegal. The applicant had submitted a number of representations, directly, through the association and also through the local M.P. but without any fruitful result. This has given rise to the present O.A.
The O.A. is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.
6. The respondents on the other hands have contended that the representation of the applicant has been examined. The headquarter office has circulated the clarification issued by the DO P&T scheme that casual labourer who have been engaged without being sponsored by employment exchange, are not entitled to the benefit of temporary status under the 1993 scheme. The applicant has been engaged directly but not through the employment exchange on dated 11.4.86.
The applicant was never appointed to the post of peon. Even otherwise the applicant does not have any claim for regularisation. The applicant’s name has been forwarded to regional office but he wants to enter through back door without competing with other candidates. The respondents have requested that the O.A. be dismissed.
Rejoinder and sur rejoinder have been filed.
7. We have heard the learned Counsels.
8. The O.A. is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The grounds urged are approaching through the Union, expecting a favourable response. We also note that the applicant had been reinstated in service after a long spell of litigation. We accordingly condone the delay in filing of O.A. having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The Employees Provident Fund organisation has been created under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Mr. Doctor, learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that the organisation has adopted the 1993 scheme of the Department of Personnel for conferment of temporary status and subsequent regularisation. The Department of Personnel and Training has issued a subsequent clarification that persons, who were not engaged through the employment exchange cannot be extended the benefit of this scheme.
10. The applicant in Para 8 of rejoinder had given the name of 8 persons, who though engaged much later than the applicant, have been regularised. The respondents have stated that all these 8 persons have been appointed by calling their names from employment exchange or advertisement in newspapers or by publishing a service on notice board. The case of applicant could not be considered as his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. It is however, not stated as to how the persons belonging to last two categories were regularised. The date of regularisation is also not indicated.
11. It appears from the judgment of Industrial Tribunal that the claim of the applicant was that he had been appointed against the post of peon-cum-water boy. The respondents on the other hand had stated that he was engaged to provide drinking water to employees etc.
12. It also appears that the respondents had contested the application on three grounds namely (a) that he has not been appointed through the employment exchange and was a casual labour, (b) that he had not completed 240 days in a year and (c) that he has assisted a Head Clerk in a bribe case. He was discharged from service when it was found that he actively assisted the Head Clerk in accepting bribe.
The respondents herein had not produced any evidence or document, and the reference was decided on the evidence of second party i.e. the applicant herein. The Industrial Tribunal held that there is no reason to disbelieve the workman that he was working as a peon and waterman. While specific findings have not been recorded the Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that if he had completed 240 days he was entitled to notice under ID Act and if not then action had to be taken in accordance with disciplinary rules. His termination was accordingly set aside.
The order was upheld by this bench an the O.A. was dismissed at the admission stage.
13. Government of India instructions quoted at Note 3 of Swamy’s Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration (last O.M. is dated 26th October, 1984) provides that for obtaining regular appointment a casual labour must have been appointed through employment exchange and must have had minimum two years experience. DOPT O.M. of 7th May, 1985 had made a one time exception and provided that even those who were not engaged through employment exchange can be regularised.
Pursuant to the decision of Apex Court in Surendra Singh case the Government had issued a comprehensive instruction vide their letter dated 7.6.1988 on the subject of conditions of service of casual labourer. Thereafter the 1993 scheme has been framed for conferment of temporary status and subsequent regularisation. Paras 3 and 8(i) of 1993 scheme is as under:
“3. The scheme is applicable to casual labourers in employment of the Ministries/ Departments of Government of India and their attached and subordinate offices, on the date of issue of these orders. But it shall not be applicable to casual workers in Railways, Department of Telecommunication and Department of Posts who already have their own scheme.”
8. (i) Two out of every three vacancies in Group ‘D’ cadres in respective offices where the casual labourers have been working would be filled up as per extant Recruitment Rules and in accordance with the instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training from amongst casual workers with temporary status. However, regular Group ‘D’ staff rendered surplus for any reason will have prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies. In case of illiterate casual labourers or those who fail to fulfill the minimum qualification prescribed for the post, regularisation will be considered only against those posts in respect of which literacy or lack of minimum qualification will not be a requisite qualification. They would be allowed age relaxation equivalent to the period for which they have worked continuously as casual labourer.”
14. Mr. Dave learned Counsel for the applicant has advanced alternative arguments of (a) Having completed 240 days (b) Having worked for 18 years and (c) juniors having been regularised. He has relied on the following decisions:
(i) The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Maninder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2003(4) SLR 771. The Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid case was considering the matter relating to employees who had put in 6 to 16 years of service and were demanding (a) salary on par with regular employees (b) regularisation of service in accordance with the policy of the Government.
The High Court noticed the decisions of Apex Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, Chief Conservator of Forests v. J.N. Kondhana, State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vijaya Sharma’s case. It held:
“We direct the State Government to implement its policy of rgularisation dated 23.1.2001 and consider the cases of all the petitioners for regularisation of service in accordance with rules and without unnecessarily emphasising on the objection of the State that no vacancies are available at this stage”.
(ii) The decision in Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(4) SLR 681. The Hon’ble High Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners, who had worked for more than 10 years as a part time employees, in accordance with their instructions dated 1.2.99 and 25.2.99. It also held that after framing the scheme the department cannot say that posts are not available.
(iii) The decision of Gujarat High Court in P.G. Pandya v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 6 GHJ (448). The applicant was working as a daily wage employee on part time basis for 23 years. When a proposal for absorption was sent the Government directed for filling up the post as per Recruitment Rules. The applicant was not considered for regularisation. The appointed person worked for only 6 months. The High Court had directed to treat the petitioner as regular employee.
(iv) The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohd. Sultan v. State of Haryana, 2001(4) SLR 313. The Hon’ble High Court had held that once the Labour Court had passed orders for reinstatement with continuity in service, the service has to be treated as continuous. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for regularisation in terms of their policy.
(v) The decision of Hon’ble High Court in Ram Swaroop v. State of Haryana, 2001 (4) SLR 679. The Hon’ble High Court held that once the applicant has been reinstated with continuity of service the intervening period has to be treated as duty for purposes of regularisation also. It also directed regularisation in terms of the existing policy.
(vi) The decision in Punjab and Haryana High Court in Trilochan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 (6) SLR 291. The applicant therein had been duly selected through employment exchange and was in continuous service from September, 1983. They were illegally terminated on 20.11.84 and reengaged on 21.1.85. The regularisation had been denied on the ground that he had not completed two years service on 1.4.85. The Hon’ble High Court held that the services have to be treated as continuous and is therefore, entitled to the benefit of the regularisation scheme.
(vii) The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Surjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Haryana. The petitioners had been working for long periods of five to 14 years. The applicants had been claiming equal pay for equal work.
(viii) The Allahabad High Court in Awadesh Kumar Yadav v. Divisional Forest Officer, 2001(2) SLR 90 was considering the case of a stenographer who had been working for 18 years. The Hon’ble High Court in its very brief order has held:
“In our opinion to keep a person on daily wage basis for 18 years is only arbitrary. Hence on the facts and circumstances of the case we direct that the petitioner be regularised within a month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order and he shall be paid regular salary thereafter.”
(ix) The decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of S. K. Chattrjee v. Calcutta District Primary School Council, 2001(2) SLR 172. The Hon’ble High Court had held that as the applicant had put in long years of service the regularisation can not be denied on the ground that his appointment was not done as per Recruitment Rules.
(x) The decision of Apex Court in Gujarat Agricultural University v. R.L Bechar, 2001(1) SLR 519. The Apex Court has directed framing of the scheme for regularisation of all persons who had completed 10 or more years of service and having prescribed qualifications. The decision in Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1992(8) SLR 784 (SC) has been referred to.
15. The above decisions can be summarised as under :
(a) Regularisation of persons who had put in long years of service in view of length of service. (b) Rgularisation in terms of the scheme. (c) Regularisation even if posts are not available. 16. We note that the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi and Ors. 2004(7) SCC 132 has in view of the conflicting decision requested the Chief Justice of India for constituting a Three Judges Bench. The following judgments had been referred to: 1. Dr. Chanchal Goyal v. State of Rajasthan 2. Gujarat Agricultural University v. Rathod Labhu Bechar 3. Ashwini Kumar v. State of Bihar 4. State of Haryana v. Piara Singh 5. Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Devt. Corpn. 6. Dr. A.K. Jain v. Union of India Para 64 of Three Judges Bench decision of the Apex Court in A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors., is as under : "64. We do not intend to say any more on the subject as even constitutionality of such a provision is pending for consideration before the Constitution Bench of this Court. (See Secy., State of Karnataka v. Uma devi). 17. We also note that the Apex Court in V. M. Chandrav. Union of India, was considering the case of a casual labourer who had put in more than five years of service. The Apex Court held:
“Considering the long period of service, appellant had put in and qualification possessed by her, namely diploma in technical subject, it would certainly entitled her to be absorbed as a skilled artisan in Grade III in scale Rs. 950-1500 against a post available in respect of direct recruitment quota.”
18. The Apex Court in Arun Kumar Rout v. State of Bihar, 1998 SCC (L&S) 1116 was considering the case of regularisation of persons who had been appointed without advertising vacancies in newspaper or calling candidates from employment exchange. The Apex Court held:
“Although in the matter of getting appointment in the Government service, the procedure required to be followed for such appointments cannot be bypassed and if the initial appointment was illegal on account of not following the procedure for appointment, the incumbent obtaining appointment without following due procedure cannot claim as a matter of right to be regularised. The Supreme Court has, however, looked with sympathy when the question of regularisation came for consideration in cases of temporary or ad hoc appointments, even made improperly, if the incumbents had been allowed to continue for a long time because of the human problem involved in such continued service. The appellants had requisite qualifications. Their performance has also not been reported unsatisfactory. They have been appointed against sanctioned posts. They were not guilty of any fraud or sharp practice. The appellants therefore deserve sympathetic consideration in getting appointment against sanctioned posts on human considerations.”
19. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, was amongst others considering the question as to whether the condition that the employee should have been sponsored by the employment exchange was proper. The High Court had set aside the said condition. The Apex Court held:
“14. The next question is whether the orders issued by the two Governments were arbitrary and unreasonable in so far as they prescribed that only those employees who had been sponsored by Employment Exchange should alone be regularised. In our opinion, this was a reasonable and wholesome requirement designed to curb and discourage back door entry and irregular appointments. The Government orders say that all those who have been sponsored by Employment Exchange or have been appointed after issuing a public advertisement alone should be regularised. We see no unreasonableness or invalidity in the same. As stated above, it is a wholesome provision and ought not to have bean invalidated. Moreover, as pointed out hereinbefore, it is not found by the High Court that the writ petitioners were appointed only after obtaining a non-availability certificate from the Employment Exchange. The decision relied upon by the High Court does not say that even without such a certificate from Employment Exchange, an appointment can be made or that such appointment would be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16.
We must also say that the further requirement prescribed in the orders viz-, that the ‘ employees must have possessed the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of his appointment on ad hoc basis is equally a valid condition. Indeed, no exception is taken to it by the High Court.”
Para 25 of the judgment is as follows:
“Before parting with this case, we think it appropriate to say a few words concerning the issue of regularisation of ad hoc/temporary employees in Government service.”
xxx xxx xxx
If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State.
xxx xxx xxx
So far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell–say two or three years–a presumption may arise that there is a regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. As has been repeatedly stressed by this Court, security of tenure is necessary for an employee to give his best to the job. In this behalf, we do commend the orders of the Government of Haryana (contained in its letter dated 6.4.90 referred to hereinbefore) both in relation to work-charged employees as well as casual labour.”
20. A Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent, Malkapatnam v.K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, was considering the following submissions.
(a) Earlier decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. N. Hargopal, (1987) SCC (L&S) 227 : 1988(1) SLJ 59 (SC). (b) It would be better to adopt both the mediums viz., of employment exchange and publication in the newspapers as many people cannot reach the employment exchange and the employment exchange do not adopt fair means in forwarding the names according to seniority. The Apex Court held:
“6. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.”
21. The Apex Court in Union of India v. K.G. Vyas, 1996 SCC (L&S) 468 has held as under:
“Appointment to the post of Storekeeper/Store Issuer/Clerk is regulated by certain rules governing recruitment to the post in the Department. The respondent, if eligible, is entitled to be considered for the same along with all others who may be candidates for the appointment. That is the only correct way of filling these posts which would ensure equal opportunity in the matter of employment as required by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to all eligible persons who arc candidates for these posts. Any order for absorption and rgularisation of a person not appointed in accordance with the rules, given in the manner contained in the impugned order of the Tribunal would result in denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment to the other eligible candidates for the public offices.”
22. The Apex Court in Executive Engineer, Z.P, Engg. Division v. Digambara Rao was considering an appeal from decision of Kerala High Court upholding the decision of single Judge/Labour Court setting aside the termination of respondents, who had been engaged on daily wages on a temporary scheme. The Counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of Apex Court in S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager. The Apex Court had explained the scope of Section 2(bb). It held that Section 25 FFF of ID Act was attracted. It directed the Central Government to consider issuing guidelines for their accommodation in other projects/scheme or regular employment. If that was not possible to reinstate them and terminate their services after complying with 25F of ID Act.
The Apex Court after noting the decision h; A. Umarani \. Registrar Cooperative Socie-tiex, Pankaj Gupta v. State of J & K, Ten Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T. Chandigarh, Rama-krishna Kamat v. State of Karnataka negatived the plea of regularisation on the ground of length of service in absence of legal right.
23. Section 2(a) of ID Act indicates that Central Government is appropriate Government for Central Board of Trustees/State Board of Trustees under EPF Act. This means that activities of EPF organisation are an industry within the meaning of ID Act. Section 2(a) defines unfair labour practices as any of the practices specified in fifth schedule.
They are listed under headings I and I for employers/employees respectively. Sl. 10 is as under:
“To employ workmen as badlis, casuals and temporaries and to continue them for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and previleges of permanent women.”
As this benefit is specially created under ID Act relief in this regard can be claimed only under a forum created under that act.
24. We first note that the applicant has sought for rgularisation from April 1994 or from next relevant date. It is after coming into force of the 1993 scheme regarding conferment of Temporary status and subsequent absorption. The power to amend the scheme or to relax the provisions have been conferred on the Department of Personnel and Training. There is nothing on record to suggest as to how the scheme has been adopted by the EPF organisation particularly with regard to this clause.
25. We further note that a Division Bench of Apex Court in Piara Singh’s case had accepted as valid the condition imposed in the rgularisation order that these casual labours must have been appointed through employment exchange. A Three Judges Bench has subsequently held that both the procedures of obtaining the name from employment exchange as well as wide publicity should be adopted. This judgment is subsequent to the date of issue of clarification that casual labours, who were not recruited through employment exchange, will not be entitled to grant of temporary status. DOPT has itself issued a clarification on 18.5.98 for wide publicity also. There is nothing on record to suggest if after this decision the guidelines have been modified by DOPT or that the Central Board of Trustees of EPF have taken some other decision.
26. Whether in exercise of clause of the scheme as adopted by EPF organisation, and in view of the Apex Court decision in Piara Singh ‘s case etc., the organisation has taken any view regarding regularisation of persons with long years of service is also not clear.
27. Para 4(i) of the 1993 scheme is as under:
“4(i). Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this O.M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week).”
28. It lays down only two conditions namely that applicant must be on employment on the date of O.M. and that they must have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week).
The applicant was on roll. The applicant has been directed to be reinstated on the post he was holding. Reinstatement generally leads to continuity of service. The applicant has also been paid back wages. Hence he fulfills the second condition also.
29. It is, however, contended by the respondents that as the applicant had not been engaged through the employment exchange he could not be conferred temporary status. We note that respondents in their reply have indicated that persons engaged as casual labour on the strength of advertisement in newspaper or notice on notice board (Para 10 above) have been regularised. This date is not indicated. We also note that the 1993 Scheme is silent as to the source from which the casual labour was engaged. The clarification has been issued only in 1994. Subsequently a Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has said that wide publicity should be done in addition to obtaining the name from employment exchange. DOPT has also issued a circular.
We have noted in Paras 25 and 26 above that the respondents have not brought on record decision of EPF Board of Trustees if any regarding conferring temporary status/regularisation of persons, who had put in long years of service and regarding the amendment of 1994 circular.
We note that in Para 25 of its judgment in Piara Singh ‘s case the Apex Court has held that if a casual labour is continued for a fair long spell say two to three years his case should be sympathetically considered. The Apex Court decision in Arun Kumar Rout’s case also refers.
30. In the case of Chandra Moulli Jadhav v. The Postmaster General in O.A. 710/02 decided on 22.8.03 the Bangalore Bench of CAT has held that merely because a person has not been sponsored by the employment exchange, it cannot be treated as disqualification when such a person has a long prior service in the department. It has further held that when a person is allowed to work continuously for three years a presumption should be raised that there is a need for engaging the said person on regular basis.
31. This Tribunal in O.A. 378/04 was considering the matter relating to regularisation of Ex. Seasonal workers in the office of Air Force Station Jamnagar. They were governed by a scheme of the Defence Ministry. It also did not have a clause that they should have been sponsored by employment exchange. The matter had been referred to Ministry of Defence, we did not express any opinion regarding conferment of temporary status/regularisation. We had observed that the applicants will not be denied the opportunity of being reengaged merely on the ground that their names not being sponsored by the employment exchange.
32. We accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled for conferment of Temporary Status on the date of coming into force of the 1993 Scheme. He is also entitled to regularisation as per Para 8 of the scheme in his turn. This exercise be completed within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. He will be entitled to benefits of pay fixation, increment etc., in terms of 1993 Scheme. The arrears will be restricted to one year before the filing of the O.A. In case the payment is not made within this three months period interest at 9% will be payable beyond this period. The O.A. is disposed of with these directions. No costs.