# Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 229
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1453 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-pratap-maurya-ors-v-state-of-u-p-54566
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Mohd.
Zafar
Khan,
Nandita
Bharti,
Puneet
Chandra, Ravi Shanker Tiwari

A. Service Law - National Rural Health
Mission (NRHM) - Multi Purpose Health
Workers (Male) - Contractual Appointment -
Guidelines for Multipurpose Health Worker
(Male), 2010
-
Clause 3.1 and 3.3
-
Constitutional Law - Article 23 and Article 21 -
Petitioners appointed as MPHW (Male) under
NRHM scheme for three years - Challenged
termination
orders
limiting
services
to
31.03.2014 - Held, petitioners entitled to
continue for three years from their appointment
dates (2012-2015 or 2013-2016) as per
Guidelines, 2010 - St. Government failed to
create regular posts for continuity as mandated
- Work taken beyond three years till March
2018 without payment violates Article 23
(prohibition of begar) and Article 21 (right to
livelihood) - Government of India and St. to pay
salaries for three-year period as per sharing
ratio; St. to pay for work beyond three years till
actual work period - Ram Chet Verma Vs St. of
U.P. relied upon. (Para 26-28, 31-32)

Writ petitions allowed.
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
229

8. Writ petition is allowed in light
of judgment of this Court in Smt. Meera
Tiwari(Supra)
as
well
as
Atiullah
Khan(Supra).

9. However, this order shall not
preclude the respondents to pass fresh
order or to complete the inquiry against
the petitioner in accordance with law. "

12. From the perusal of Rregulation
4(1) of the Regulations, 2020 as well as
law laid down by this Court in Smt. Meera
Tiwari(Supra) & Munshi Lal(Supra), this
Court is also of the view that suspension
order can only be passed in contemplation
of inquiry or during the pendency of
inquiry and if in the suspension order,
there is no such averment, the same is bad
and liable to be set aside.

13. So far as present case is
concerned, it is apparently clear that in the
orders in question inquiry is neither
contemplated
nor
pending,
therefore,
impugned suspension orders are in the
teeth
of
Rregulation
4(1)
of
the
Regulations, 2020 as well as law laid
down by this Court in Smt. Meera
Tiwari(Supra) & Munshi Lal(Supra).

14. Accordingly, impugned Official
Memorandum dated 18.01.2024 bearing
letter No. 308, Official Memorandum
dated 18.01.2024 bearing letter dated 310
and
Official
Memorandum
dated
16.01.2024 bearing letter No. 309 are
hereby quashed.

15. Writ petition is allowed.

16. No order as to costs.

17. However, this order shall not
preclude the respondents to pass fresh
order
or
complete
the
departmental
proceeding against the petitioners in
accordance with law.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 229
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 1453 of 2024

Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vidhu Bhushan Kalia, Adarsh Saxena, Vidhu
Bhushan Kalia

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Mahesh Chandra Chaturvedi, Mohd.
Zafar
Khan,
Nandita
Bharti,
Puneet
Chandra, Ravi Shanker Tiwari

A. Service Law - National Rural Health
Mission (NRHM) - Multi Purpose Health
Workers (Male) - Contractual Appointment -
Guidelines for Multipurpose Health Worker
(Male), 2010
-
Clause 3.1 and 3.3
-
Constitutional Law - Article 23 and Article 21 -
Petitioners appointed as MPHW (Male) under
NRHM scheme for three years - Challenged
termination
orders
limiting
services
to
31.03.2014 - Held, petitioners entitled to
continue for three years from their appointment
dates (2012-2015 or 2013-2016) as per
Guidelines, 2010 - St. Government failed to
create regular posts for continuity as mandated
- Work taken beyond three years till March
2018 without payment violates Article 23
(prohibition of begar) and Article 21 (right to
livelihood) - Government of India and St. to pay
salaries for three-year period as per sharing
ratio; St. to pay for work beyond three years till
actual work period - Ram Chet Verma Vs St. of
U.P. relied upon. (Para 26-28, 31-32)

Writ petitions allowed.
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Chet Verma & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
(2020) 3 SCT 640 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vidhu
Bhushan Kalia, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned
Senior
Advocate
assisted
by
Shri
Mahendra
Kumar
Mishra,
learned
Counsel for the Union of India, Shri
Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional
Advocate General assisted by learned
Standing
Counsel
and
Shri
Puneet
Chandra, learned counsel for the National
Health Mission.

2. Since in all the petitions same
issue & controversy is involved, so they
have been heard together and decided by
this common judgment.

3. All the writ petitions are having
almost the identical prayers and it would
be difficult to mention the prayers of all
the petitions but for convenience, the
prayer made in the leading petition No.
1453 of 2014 (Shiv Pratap Maurya and
667 others Vs. State of U.P. and others)
are being quoted hereinbelow:-

" i) to issue a suitable writ,
order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari quashing the impugned orders
dated
22.11.2013,
11.12.2013
and
26.02.2014 issued by the respondent no.
3, 7 and 4 respectively, so far as the same
provides approval of services of the
petitioners till 31.03.2014 and also to the
extent
the
same
provides
salary/honorarium
to
Multipurpose
Workers only upto 31.03.2014 ( as are
contained in Annexure No. 1, Annexure No.
2 and Annexure no. 3 respectively to this
writ petition) and other consequential
orders if any.

ii) to issue a suitable writ, order
or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents not to give
effect to the impugned orders dated
22.11.2013, 11.12.2013 and 26.02.2014
issued by the Respondent no.-3, 7 and 4
respectively, so far as the same provides
approval of services of the petitioners till
31.03.2014 and also to the extent the same
provides
salary/honorarium
to
Multipurpose
Workers
only
upto
31.03.2014 (as are contained in Annexure
No. 1, Annexure no. 2 and Annexure No. 3
respectively to this writ petition) and other
consequential orders if any.

iii) to issue a suitable writ, order
or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to allow the
petitioners to continue on the post of
MPWs/MPHW till the continuation of the
National Rural Health Mission Scheme and
other related schemes launched by the
Government of India and to pay them their
salary/honorarium as and when the same
accrues alongwith their arrears;

iv) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondents to fill up the
posts of Health Worker (Male) after
initiating the regular process of selection
for appointment as per the Service Rules,
1997 as amended in the year 1998 and
provide preference to the petitioners in
appointment and
during
training
on
account of their length of service and the
nature of job and duties being same after
granting
required
age
relaxation
in
accordance
with
relevant
rules
and
Government Order;"

4. Appointments were given to the
petitioners on different dates between the
4 All. Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
231
period from October, 2012 till March, 2013
on the post of Multi Purpose Health
Workers (Male) (hereinafter referred to as,
the M.P. H.W. (Male) for a period of three
years under the scheme namely National
Rural Health Mission (hereinafter referred
to as, the N.R.H.M.) floated by the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India.

5. Government of India had also
issued guidelines for M.P. H.W. (Male)
namely,
Guidelines
for
Multipurpose
Health Worker (Male), 2010, (hereinafter
referred to as, the Guidelines, 2010)
wherein
clause
3.1
provides
for
engagement of M.P. H.W. (Male) for a
period of three years.

6. In pursuance of the Guidelines,
2010 the Mission Director, N.R.H.M. vide
its letter dated 05.09.2012 had directed all
the District Magistrates/Chief Medical
Officers of State of U.P. for appointment of
MPHW (Male) as per the scheme floated
by the Government of India and in
pursuance thereof, all the petitioners were
given appointment.

7. On 22.11.2013, the Director,
N.R.H.M. issued a letter addressed to the
Mission
Director,
N.R.H.M,
U.P.
mentioning therein that Government of
India has directed to convey approval of
contractual appointment of MPHWs (Male)
uptill 31.03.2014 and Government of India
will bear in payment of wages to the extent
of 75% for current financial year subject to
certain conditions and it was clarified that
further support for contractual MPHWs
(Male) will not be provided by the
Government of India beyond financial year
2013-14.
Against
the
letter
dated
22.11.2013, which is under challenge in the
present petitions, an interim order has been
granted by this Court vide its order dated
25.03.2014 whereby this Court allowed the
petitioners to continue beyond 31.03.2014.
The interim order dated 25.03.2014 is
being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Since controversy involved in
the aforesaid writ petitions are one and the
same, as such
they have been connected and heard
together.

Heard Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned
Senior Advocate Assisted by Mr. Vidhu
Bhushan Kalia, learned counsel appearing
for petitioners, Mr. K.C. Kaushik, learned
Additional Solicitor General for opposite
parties no. 2 and 3 as well as Mr. Saurabh
Lavania, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party no. 4 and the learned
Standing Counsel for State.

Mr. S.K. Kalia, learned Senior
Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. V.B. Kalia,
Advocate, appearing for petitioners submits
that under the guidelines for Multipurpose
Health Worker (Male) 2010 [hereinafter
referred to as the "MPHW (M)"], MPHW
(M) shall be engaged for initial period of
three years. The expenditure shall be
shared by the Central Government and the
State Government during the said period.
The said guidelines also provide that the
State Government is required to create
requisite number of posts and fill up on
regular basis within next three years so
that the continuity of these workers is
maintained after the initial period of three
years, during which the Government of
India is to provide financial assistance.

It is submitted that the Scheme
under which MPHW (M) have been
engaged has been initiated in the year 2012
in the State of U.P. The petitioners shall be
allowed to initially continue for three years
at least before being absorbed against
regular posts sanctioned by the State
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government. It is submitted that earlier
identically situated persons like petitioners
were not getting honorarium after 30th
September, 2013 and, as such, had
approached the Court by filing Writ
Petition No.3792 (SS) of 2013. The Court,
after recording the observations that
learned Additional Solicitor General of
India does not dispute the fact that the
Scheme has been extended by the Central
Government up to the year 2017, had
directed the respondents to allow the
petitioners to work and discharge their
duties till the next date of listing and pay
honorarium on the post, in question under
N.R.H.M. Scheme, till the end of financial
year 2013-14.

It is submitted that in compliance
of the aforesaid order the Director,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
(N.R.H.M.-I Section), Government of India
vide letter dated 22.11.2013 has conveyed
the approval of contractual MPHWs till
31st March, 2014 only.

The submission is that there is no
justification for granting approval to the
petitioners' engagement for a period up to
31st March, 2014 only when as per the
guidelines the petitioners are required to
continue for initial period of three years
before being absorbed against regular
posts created by the State Government. It is
submitted that the work and post on which
the petitioners are working are very much
available and directions be issued to
respondents to allow the petitioners to
continue after 31st March, 2014.

Mr.
K.C.
Kaushik,
learned
Additional Solicitor General of India
submits that the Scheme is in fact in two
parts; one part is to continue till 2017
whereas the second part of the Scheme
under which petitioners have been engaged
has been approved for the period up to
31.3.2014 only. It is also submitted that the
financial burden after 31.3.2014 is to be
borne by the State Government.

Be that as it may, prima-facie, I
am of the view that as per Scheme
petitioners are required to be engaged
initially for a period of three years. The
engagement of petitioners is to be approved
on year to year basis. The scheme has
started in the State of U.P. in the year 2012
and has to continue initially for three
years. The financial assistance is to be
provided by the Central Government in the
ratio of 85%, 75% and 65% respectively as
per letter dated 3.1.2011. The remaining
cost shall be shared by the State
Government.

The petitioners, as such, shall be
allowed to continue after 31.3.2014 and in
this regard necessary formalities with
respect to approval of their engagement,
sanction of project implementation plan,
availability of finance etc. shall be done by
the authorities concerned and they shall be
paid salary/emoluments regularly provided
their work and conduct is satisfactory.

Let counter affidavit be filed by
the opposite parties within six weeks. In
case counter affidavit is filed petitioners
may file rejoinder affidavit within two
weeks, thereafter.

List thereafter."

8. After passing of the said interim
order dated 25.03.2014, the Government of
India has issued another letter dated
18.06.2014 communicating the decision
that
the
period
of
service
of
the
petitioners/MPHWs
(Male)
has
been
extended till 30.09.2014 and thereafter the
Government of India will not support and
the State Government shall bear the cost of
payment to the MPHWs (Male). In
pursuance of the letter dated 18.06.2014,
the Mission Director had also issued a letter
dated 09.07.2014 informing the Director
4 All. Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
233
General
(Medical
Health
Services)
regarding the decision of the Government
of India.

9.

Learned
Counsels
for
the
petitioners have submitted that as per
Clause 3.1. of the Guidelines, 2010 issued
by the Government of India, the period of
service provided was three years and the
petitioners are entitled to be treated in
service for a period of three years from the
date of their appointment on the post of
MPHW (Male).

10. It is further submitted that the
petitioners who were appointed in the
month of October, 2012 they were entitled
to continue on the post till the year 2015
whereas the petitioners who were appointed
in the year 2013, they shall be permitted to
continue till the year 2016 and payment of
their honorarium/salary would be made as
per the Guidelines, 2010 laid down by the
Government of India as per the ratio
divided between the Government of India
and the State Government.

11. It is further submitted that after
the completion of three years of period,
the petitioners are entitled for continuity in
service on regular basis and the State
Government
is
liable
to
pay
the
salary/honorarium after the expiry of three
years of period from the date of initial
appointment and in support of their
submissions, they placed reliance on
Clause 3.3 of the Guidelines, 2010.

12. It is further submitted that almost
all the petitioners had worked uptill
March, 2018 and thereafter they were not
permitted to continue and thus they are
entitled for the salary from the expiry of
period of three years till they had actual
worked.

13. On the other hand, Shri S.B.
Pandey, learned Senior Advocate & Deputy
Solicitor General of India assisted by
Mahendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel
for the Union of India has submitted that as
per the Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines, 2010,
the Scheme was only for a period of three
years and not beyond that but it was
extended by letter dated 18.06.2014 for a
further period of six months i.e. uptill
30.09.2014, so the Government of India is
ready to bear its share as per the Clause 3.1
of the Guidelines, 2010 and thereafter it is
the State of U.P., who is liable to make the
payment till they had taken work from the
MPHWs (Male).

14. Whereas, Shri Kuldeep Pati
Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate
General assisted by learned Standing
Counsel has submitted that the petitioners
are entitled for the payment only uptill the
existence of the scheme i.e. till 30.09.2014.

15. It is further submitted that the
payment of salary/honorarium to the
petitioners was on the basis of matching
grant share of the Government of India and
the State Government and after 30.09.2014,
the Government of India has not provided
any grant or share for the purpose of
payment to these petitioners and there is no
budgetary provisions for payment to the
petitioners.

16. It is further submitted that on
04.02.2016, the State Government had
issued a letter to all the Chief Medical
Officers of State of U.P. that the
Government of U.P. has already closed the
scheme under which these petitioners were
working and directed the C.M.Os not to
take any work from these MPHWs (Male)
and if they take work, they will be
personally liable for the same.
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. It is further submitted that the
petitioners were not permitted to work after
30.09.2014.

18. Replying thereto, learned counsels
for the petitioners have relied on the letter
dated 29.10.2018 written by the Director
General, Family Welfare which enclosed as
annexure No. S.A. 4 to the supplementary
affidavit filed on 18.02.2021 in Writ A No.
5624 of 2014 mentioning therein that 394
MPHWs (Male) are working and secondly ,
the letter of the State Government dated
04.02.2016 directing all the C.M.Os to stop
taking work from MPHWs (Male).

19.
 Learned
counsels
for
the
petitioners are not disputing that the
number given in the letter dated 29.10.2018
that only 394 MPHWs (Male) were
working and not all the petitioners and
there was no occasion for the State
Government to issue the letter dated
04.02.2016 if the petitioners were not
working after 30.09.2014.

20. After hearing learned counsel
for the parties and going through the
record of the case, the position which
emerges out in the present case is that to
prevent the people from Vector Bond
diseases, the National Vector Bond
Control Program was introduced by the
Government of India. In the State of U.P.,
the Vector Bond diseases are a major
public
health
problem.
Malaria
is
prevalent in all 72 districts and a matter
of concern in interstate border districts.
Filaria continues to be endemic in 50
districts with a micro filarial rate of 1.5%
and above. Kala-azar is endemic in 4
districts of eastern U.P. In around 27
districts
Japanese
encephalitis
is
widespread and hyper endemic in 4
districts as indicated in the Scheme itself.

21. Petitioners were appointed on
different dates between the period from
October, 2012 to March, 2013 so one of the
important question which is to be decided
would be about the date of implementation
of
the
Scheme
introduced
by
the
Government of India. As per Clause 3.1 of
the Guidelines, 2010 issued by the
Government of India, the Scheme is only
for a period of three years, during which it
would be functional. The purpose of the
scheme is to eradicate and prevention of
diseases, as mentioned above and to depute
the MPHW (Male) at different Primary
Health Centre in the State of U.P. The
Central Government gave approval to the
State of U.P. for making appointment under
the Scheme only on 05.09.2012.

22. After the approval by the
Government
of
India,
the
State
Government had gone through the process
of appointment by making advertisement
etc and the appointments were made on
different dates from October, 2012 uptill
March, 2013. The date of implementation
of the Scheme thus cannot be before the
date of appointment on which these
petitioners were given appointment.

23. The scheme would become
functional only after the appointments were
made which can only be taken as the date
of the period of implementation of scheme
and the undefined three years of scheme
and this period of three years would end in
the case of the petitioners, who were
appointed in the year 2012 would be 2015
and the petitioners who were appointed in
the year 2013 in their case, it would be
2016.

24. As far as the working of the
petitioners beyond the expiry of the period
of three years, reliance has been placed on
4 All. Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
235
Clause 3.3. of the Guidelines, 2010 which
is quoted hereinbelow:-

"3.3 The State Governments need
to create the requisite number of posts and
fill up on regular basis within next three
years so that the continuity of these
workers is maintained after the initial
period of three years during which the
Government of India is to provide financial
assistance."

25. From the perusal of the same, it
comes out that the State Government was
required to create the requisite number of
posts and fill up on regular basis but no
such exercise was done. The purpose of
filling up the vacancy on regular basis is
for giving continuity to these MPHWs
(Male)/petitioners
and
they
may
maintained after the end of scheme/expiry
of three years period. On the contrary, the
letter was issued by the State Government
on 04.02.2016 directing the C.M.O.s of the
State of U.P. not to take work from these
petitioners/MPHWs (Male) and if they will
be permitted then the officer concerned will
be liable personally. This direction by
the State Government is against the interim
order dated 25.03.2014 granted by this
Court and that too on the stay vacation
application preferred for vacating the
interim order dated 25.03.2014, no orders
have been passed by this Court vacating the
order. When the stay order is in operation,
then there was no occasion to issue such
letters. The C.M.O.s are bound to comply
with the orders passed by this Court and
not the order issued by the authorities
contrary to the orders of this Court.

26. The work was taken from the
MPHWs (Male), so after the expiry of the
three years period till the work taken from
them by the State Government from the
petitioners till March, 2018, the State
respondents being welfare State is liable to
make payment as Begar is prohibited under
Article 23 read with Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Moreso, the natue of
the work was prevention of certain diseases
which was definately for the benefit or the
interest of the people of the State & broadly
in the interest of the State itself. As
indicated earlier the Central Government
intended that the MPHWs (Male) may be
absorbed on regular basis by creating posts.
In such circumstances, the State cannot
refuse to pay to the MPHWs (Male) till the
date they worked. If the work was taken
then they must be paid salary for the same.

27. Article 23 of the Constitution of
India has wider implications and scope
regrading begar i.e. by taking work but not
paying for the same which is linked with
right to livelihood covered under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.

28. In the present case, the interim
order has been granted by this court which
is quoted in the preceding paragraph in
favour of the petitioners permitting them to
continue and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ram Chet Verma and others
Vs. the State of U.P. and others (2020) 3
SCT 640 (SC) has held that if the
petitioners have served, as per the interim
order, obviously they have to be paid the
salary for the period they have rendered
their services. Non payment of salary to
them for the period they have served under
the interim order or otherwise would
tantamount to taking begar from them,
which is prohibited under Article 23 of the
Constitution of India. For convenience, the
said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

"1. Heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Leave Granted.

3. Since the Appellants have
served as per the interim order, obviously
they have to be paid the salary for the period
they have rendered their services. Nonpayment of salary to them for the period they
have served under the interim order or
otherwise would tantamount to taking begar
from them, which is prohibited Under Article
23 of the Constitution of India.

4. Therefore, we direct that the
Appellants shall be entitled to salary for
the period they have rendered their
services. The salary, if not paid, shall be
paid to the Appellants within four weeks
from today.

5. It is made clear that if the
Appellants have been paid the salary for the
aforesaid period, the same shall not be
recovered from them.

6. In view of the aforesaid
directions, the appeal is disposed of. "

29. The Share/Matching Grant of the
Government of India and State Governments
is provided in Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines,
2010, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

"3.1:- Considering the need for
MPHW(Male)
for
the
disease
control
programs, the Government of India decided
to provide financial assistance to states for
contractual remuneration of the MPHW
(Male) at 53,544 PHCs in 235 high focus
districts for a period of three years. The
remuneration will be paid at a rate of Rs.
6000 per MPHW per month. The expenditure
will be on sharing basis, 85% by NRHM and
15% by State Governments for the first year
followed by 75% and 25% for the second
year and 65% and 35% for the third years."

30. Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines, 2010
provides for matching grant by the the
Government of India and State Government
for the purpose of payment salaries to the
MPHWs (Male).

31. As per Clause 3.1 of the Guidelines,
2010, the Government of India and the State
of U.P. is directed to ensure the payment to the
petitioners who were working till the period
they had completed three years of service from
the date of their initial appointment within a
period of two months from the date of certified
copy of this order is served.

32. For the period beyond three years
petitioners shall be paid by the State
Government till they had actually worked .
The State Government shall make payment
within a period of two months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order
after verification of 394 MPHWs (Male) of
their actual working.

33. In view of the facts, circumstances
and discussions made hereinabove, the
present petition is allowed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 236
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 1939 of 2024

Ajay Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anagh Shukla, Shweta Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Akhilesh
Kumar
Srivastava,
Parmatma Prasad Singh, Rakesh Kumar
Srivastava, Rakesh Mishra