Service Law: An employee is legally “born in the cadre” only from date of official offer of appointment

Picture of Stpl law

Stpl law

In Daljit Singh v. Additional Chief Secretary (JSV) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and Others (CWP No. 596 of 2024, decided on May 12, 2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh addressed a civil writ petition seeking the retroactive backdating of a contractual appointment to accelerate service regularization. The petitioner, selected as a Junior Office Assistant (JOA-IT), argued that administrative variations across different government departments delayed his official appointment letter until October 6, 2017, causing him to narrowly miss the state’s three-year continuous service threshold required for regularization on October 1, 2020.

The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that a selection board is merely a recommending body and an employee is legally “born in the cadre” only from the date an official offer of appointment is issued and acted upon. Furthermore, the Court held that a belated challenge mounted years after accepting regularization benefits without contemporary protest is heavily barred by delay and laches.

1. Factual Background and Reliefs Sought

  • Recruitment and Allocation: The petitioner participated in a 2017 recruitment drive for the post of Junior Office Assistant (JOA-IT) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur. The final results were declared on September 15, 2017, and the petitioner was allocated to the Irrigation and Public Health (IPH) Department on September 25, 2017.
  • The Administrative Variation: While some other independent departments issued appointment orders to their respective selectees by late September, the IPH Department’s Engineer-in-Chief directed the issuance of orders on October 3, 2017. The official appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on October 6, 2017, and he joined service the same day.
  • Impact on Regularization: Under the state’s regularization instructions dated April 22, 2020, contractual employees completing 3 years of continuous service as of September 30, 2020, were to be regularized. Because the petitioner’s joining date was October 6, 2017, he fell short of this threshold. Consequently, his services were regularized on April 1, 2021, instead of October 1, 2020.
  • The Lawsuit: The petitioner approached the High Court in 2024 via a writ of Mandamus, demanding that his joining date be fictionally backdated to September 30, 2017, and his regularization be shifted retrospectively to October 1, 2020.

2. Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations

A. Status of Selectees and the Discretion of the Employer

The High Court explicitly demarcated the legal boundary between a selection recommendation and a binding employment contract:

  • Recommending vs. Appointing Authority: A selection board or commission operates strictly as a recommending body. The explicit power, jurisdiction, and discretion to extend an actual offer of appointment reside solely with the employer.
  • Vested Rights and Cadre Entry: Merely having one’s name featured on a selection list or departmental allocation does not confer a vested statutory right to an appointment. An employee is legally “born in the cadre” only on the specific date an official appointment letter is issued and subsequently executed via physical joining.
  • Absence of Malafides: In the absence of targeted or malicious administrative delays, an individual cannot demand that their contract be retroactively adjusted to match the timeline of separate departments or the publication date of a selection roster.

B. Distinction of Legal Precedents and Holiday Relaxations

The petitioner heavily relied on the Division Bench precedent Gulshan Bhatia v. State of H.P. (2021), which granted retrospective benefits to candidates whose joining was delayed due to non-working days. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel rejected this comparison, distinguishing the facts entirely:

  • In Gulshan Bhatia, the appointment letters were officially compiled and issued on September 29, 2017, but the candidates were physically precluded from joining until October 2, 2017, due to intervening public holidays.
  • In the petitioner’s case, the appointment letter itself was not even written or finalized until October 6, 2017. Since no offer of employment existed prior to October 6, no conditional right had accrued, making holiday relaxation rules completely inapplicable.

C. Bar of Delay and Laches

The state strongly opposed the petition on the ground that it was severely belated. The High Court validated this defense:

  • The regularization instructions were crystallized in 2020, and the petitioner’s regularization took effect on April 1, 2021.
  • The petitioner accepted the calculated regularization benefits without any contemporary protest or reservation, choosing to mount a judicial challenge only in the year 2024.
  • Filing a service dispute after an unexplained lapse of several years, especially after reaping the underlying administrative benefits, is hit heavily by the doctrine of delay and laches, disentitling the petitioner from invoking the discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. Final Order of the Court

  • Dismissal: Finding absolutely no merit in the petitioner’s contentions, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
  • Consequential Claims: All pending miscellaneous applications connected to the main petition were formally disposed of, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 270

Daljit Singh V. Additional Chief Secretary (Jsv) To The Government of Himachal Pradesh And Others (D.O.J. 12.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Service Law: Abrupt termination of a re-appointed contractual Medical Officer

June 3, 2026 No Comments

In Dr. Bharat Bhushan Bhardwaj v. State of H.P. &Ors. (CWP No. 2143 of 2014, decided on May 8, 2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh reviewed a service law petition challenging the abrupt termination of a re-appointed contractual Medical Officer. The petitioner’s tenure, extended via the Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS), was cut short based on a uniform state-wide policy directive without prior notice, personal hearing, or financial compensation in lieu of notice.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the disengagement order, establishing that a uniform policy decision does not grant the executive a license to bypass explicit contractual stipulations or fundamental principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Court ruled that a purely administrative order of termination cannot be applied retroactively. Because the contract was legally terminable, the Court molded the relief by directing the State to release one month’s salary within three weeks, failing which it would attract an annual interest rate of 6%.

1. Factual Background and Path of Litigation

  • The Appointment: Following his retirement from government service, the petitioner was re-appointed as a Medical Officer on a contract basis through the Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS) at Regional Hospital, Una, effective October 1, 2010.
  • The Extension & Disengagement: His contractual tenure was extended periodically, with the final agreement spanning from October 1, 2012, to September 30, 2013. However, acting on a general directive issued by the Director of Health Services, the Chief Medical Officer, Una, issued an order on June 6, 2013, abruptly terminating the petitioner’s services.
  • The Retrospective Shift: Although the termination letter was compiled and issued on June 6, 2013, it explicitly sought to disengage the doctor retroactively with effect from May 31, 2013.
  • The Défense: The State opposed the writ petition, asserting that because a uniform policy decision was executed across the state to disengage all re-appointed medical officers, the pre-stipulated contractual requirements of prior notice or a personal hearing were rendered unnecessary.

2. Key Legal Issues & Court’s Observations

A. Compliance with Express Contractual Stipulations

The High Court conducted a detailed textual examination of the state’s initial approval letter, the RKS appointment order, and the underlying contract agreement:

  • The Notice Claws: Condition No. 1 of the state’s approval letter, Condition No. 6 of the appointment letter, and Condition No. 4 of the operational contract explicitly mandated that the services of the appointee could only be dispensed with by giving one month’s prior notice or by paying one month’s salary in lieu thereof.
  • The Factual Admission: During proceedings, the High Court formally demanded that state counsel clarify whether these conditions were satisfied. The State subsequently furnished official instructions admitting that neither a one-month notice nor any salary in lieu of notice was provided to the petitioner prior to his disengagement.
  • Tenets of Fair Play: Justice Ranjan Sharma observed that an administrative action visiting an employee with adverse civil consequences must strictly adhere to the tenets of natural justice. Executing a policy uniformly across a cadre does not absolve the State from its obligation to respect mandatory contractual safeguards and fair play.

B. Prohibition Against Retrospective Executive Orders

The High Court firmly interdicted the backdated operation of the termination order under administrative law principles:

  • Limits of Executive Mandates: A purely executive or administrative order cannot be applied retroactively to cut short an employee’s service from a past date.
  • Ab-Initio Void: Because the order skipped the mandated contractual notice period and applied an illegal backdated termination effect, the disengagement structure was declared ab-initio

C. Scope of Relief in Terminable Contracts

The Court clarified the boundaries of restitution when a terminable employment contract is breached:

  • Although the termination was highly irregular and bad in law, the underlying agreement itself was legally terminable by either side via the notice-or-pay clause.
  • Therefore, the procedural non-compliance by the state does not automatically confer an absolute right to re-appointment or continuity of service for the remaining tenure. The demands of justice are fully met by enforcing the financial payout the state bypassed.

3. Final Orders and Operational Directions

The High Court allowed the writ petition in the following terms:

  • Quashing of Order: The impugned termination order dated June 6, 2013, is completely quashed and set aside.
  • Release of Salary: The respondent-State authorities are commanded to release one month’s salary to the petitioner, calculated in terms of the contractual agreement that was active at the time of the disengagement.
  • Disbursement Timeline: The mandated salary must be fully disbursed to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of the judgment.
  • Interest Penalty: Failure to release the necessary funds within the designated three-week window will automatically entitle the petitioner to an interest accrual of 6% per annum running from the deadline until final realization.
  • Costs: The petition was disposed of with all parties ordered to bear their own respective costs.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 277

Bharat Bhushan Bhardwaj V. State of H.P. &Ors (D.O.J. 08.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Next Story

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings: Prima Facie offence not disclosed – Quashed

June 3, 2026 No Comments

In Amrik Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (Cr.MMO No.203 of 2022, decided on May 13, 2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh quashed an FIR and its consequential criminal proceedings against a police official who had been charged under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly abetting bribery. The prosecution contended that when a co-accused (an Assistant Sub-Inspector) demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,00,000/- from a complainant, the petitioner advised the complainant to pay a reduced sum of Rs. 10,000/- to resolve the matter.

The High Court allowed the petition, ruling that to invoke an offense under Section 12, the prosecution must establish a clear nexus, prior instigation, or active facilitation between the alleged abettor, the principal offender, and the transaction. Because the co-accused received the bribe directly without any physical presence, prior acquaintance, or intermediation by the petitioner, and because the corroborative telephonic evidence was forensicly unreliable, the Court held that the legal ingredients of abetment were not prima facie disclosed. Subjecting the official to a protracted trial bound to fail would constitute an unmitigated abuse of the judicial process.

1. Factual Background and Path of Investigation

  • The Original Extortion: On April 20, 2019, a florist named Rakesh Kumar lodged an administrative complaint alleging that ASI Rajinder Pathania (Incharge, Police Post Daulatpur Chowk) was harassing him over a matrimonial dispute and demanding a bribe of Rs. 5,00,000/- to make the issue disappear.
  • The Alleged Abetment: Seeking assistance, the complainant contacted the petitioner, Amrik Singh—a separate police official who had previously been posted near the complainant’s native place. The petitioner allegedly advised him to pay a lower sum of Rs. 10,000/- to settle the matter with the ASI.
  • The Trap and Charging: Acting on the complaint, State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau officials caught the co-accused ASI red-handed accepting the Rs. 10,000/- bribe directly from the complainant. Following the trap, the State registered FIR No. 0005 of 2019, charging both the ASI and the petitioner under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  • Threshold Challenge: After the police completed the investigation and submitted a formal charge-sheet (Challan), the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking absolute threshold quashing of the proceedings pending before the trial court.

2. Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations

A. Jurisdictional Scope of Section 482 After a Charge-Sheet is Filed

The State opposed the petition by highlighting that because the investigation had already concluded and a formal charge-sheet was on the record, the controversy should be left entirely to a trial. Justice Sandeep Sharma, reviewing historic Supreme Court guidance (including L. Muniswamy, Bhajan Lal, Kaptan Singh, and Abhishek Singh), clarified the boundaries of inherent public law review:

  • Looking Beyond the Roster: When a quashing petition is brought after the police file a charge-sheet, the High Court must look past bare textual allegations in an FIR and evaluate the actual, substantive material gathered by the state.
  • Prevention of Persecution: While a constitutional court must not weigh conflicting evidence as a trial bench or an investigative agency, it holds a mandatory public duty to examine whether the collected facts satisfy the primitive legal elements of the offense. If the evidence fails to construct a prima facie case, forcing a citizen into a protracted trial turns court processes into a weapon of targeted harassment.

B. Failure to Prove Essential Ingredients of Abetment under Section 12

The High Court conducted a rigorous textual evaluation of Sections 7, 11, and 12 of the Act, highlighting the missing links in the prosecution’s case:

  • Absence of a Dynamic Nexus: To capture an individual under Section 12, there must be clear proof that the abettor actively instigated the bribe, physically facilitated the exchange, or maintained a common plan with the primary offender.
  • Geographical and Operational Isolation: At the time of the incident, the petitioner and the co-accused ASI were posted at entirely different, unconnected police stations. The prosecution produced no data, records, or logs establishing a prior meeting, mutual acquaintance, or communication network between the two officers.
  • Direct Pre-Existing Transactions: The complainant’s own statement revealed that he had been directly dealing with, and paying money to, the co-accused ASI as early as March 31, 2019—long before he ever sought the telephonic advice of the petitioner. Since a direct extortion channel already existed, there was no logical occasion or operational need to involve the petitioner as an intermediary.
  • No Handling of Funds: The petitioner never handled, collected, or attempted to pass any currency from the victim to the principal offender; the ASI accepted the bribe completely independently.

C. Fatal Rejection of Electronic Forensic Records

The state’s secondary evidence centered around an audio recording transcript intended to prove that the petitioner telephonically instigated the bribery transaction. The High Court completely discredited this material based on the State’s own records:

  • The FSL Findings: The official Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report explicitly noted that the primary voice recordings contained severe, overwhelming environmental background noise and continuous communication disturbance.
  • Total Admissibility Failure: The FSL categorized the recording and transcript quality as sub-standard. The Court observed that since the underlying data was forensically compromised, the integrity of the transcript was highly doubtful, leaving the prosecution with no credible link to establish criminal abetment.

3. Final Order of the Court

  • Petition Allowed: The High Court found the prosecution’s case against the petitioner entirely unsustainable.
  • Proceedings Quashed: FIR No. 0005 of 2019, registered at Police Station SV & AC, Una, along with all consequential criminal proceedings, is permanently quashed and set aside strictly with respect to the petitioner only.
  • Acquittal: The petitioner is formally acquitted of all criminal charges brought against him under the subject FIR.
  • Disposal: The petition and all connected temporary miscellaneous applications were ordered closed.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 276

Amrik Singh V. State of Himachal Pradesh And Others (D.O.J. 13.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Service Law: Re-evaluation of test questions

June 3, 2026 No Comments

In Bhupesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (CWP No.3962 of 2019, decided on May 13, 2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh adjudicated a service law petition challenging the final answer key of a written Screening Test used for selecting Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT). The petitioner, who was placed on the waiting list after falling short of the final appointment cut-off mark, sought the judicial constitution of an independent panel of experts to re-evaluate the test questions.

The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that courts cannot act as appellate authorities over academic bodies or substitute judicial opinions for the vetted consensus of independent subject experts. Furthermore, the Court held that the petition was severely barred by the doctrines of estoppel and acquiescence because the petitioner unconditionally participated in the subsequent stages of the selection process without protesting the final answer key when it was published. Lastly, the petition was ruled fatally defective for the non-joinder of necessary parties, as the already appointed and serving candidates whose rights would be directly disrupted were not impleaded as respondents.

1. Factual Background and Reliefs Sought

  • The Examination: The petitioner participated in an objective-type written Screening Test conducted by Respondent No. 3 to fill several vacancies for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT).
  • Objections Filed: Following the publication of a provisional answer key, the petitioner submitted formal administrative objections regarding the keys to nine specific questions (Serial Nos. 10, 14, 15, 58, 64, 68, 70, 72, and 80).
  • Vetting and Final Key: The respondents referred all candidate objections to an independent Expert Panel. The panel cross-referenced the objections with standard textbooks and subsequently revised the keys for questions 10, 14, and 15, publishing the definitive Series-D final answer key on June 18, 2019.
  • The Unsuccessful Result: Using the final key uniformly across all OMR sheets, the petitioner cleared the written cutoff and was invited to the next phase—a 15-mark overall evaluation round. Ultimately, the petitioner scored 51.46 marks in the General Unreserved category. Because the final appointment cut-off was 52 marks, he missed selection and was placed at Serial No. 38 on the waiting list.
  • Judicial Grievance: In November 2019, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226, requesting an independent judicial panel to re-examine the answer keys and seeking a Mandamus to keep one TGT post vacant pending final adjudication.

2. Key Legal Issues and Court’s Observations

A. Limited Scope of Judicial Review in Academic Matters

The High Court emphasized strict procedural restraint regarding technical and academic evaluations:

  • Expert Primacy: The provisional keys were properly scrutinized and vetted by a designated panel of independent subject experts using standardized academic literature.
  • Judicial Restraint: Under settled public law principles, a constitutional court cannot sit in appeal over the academic findings of subject specialists or substitute its own arbitrary textual view for a structured expert consensus. In the absence of proven malafides or patent rule violations, a final key processed uniformly across all candidates must be treated as final.

B. Bar of Estoppel and Acquiescence

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that the petitioner’s subsequent conduct procedurally blocked him from challenging the initial testing parameters:

  • Afterthought Litigation: The petitioner did not file a legal challenge when the final key was published in June 2019. Instead, he willingly accepted the evaluation criteria to advance to the 15-mark interview/evaluation round.
  • Estoppel by Conduct: A candidate cannot unconditionally gamble on a selection process, participate in all its computational tiers, and then turn around to legally challenge the foundational answer keys or grading systems only after discovering that they have been unsuccessful. Filing the writ petition months later was an invalid afterthought.

C. Fatal Defect of Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties

The High Court determined that the lawsuit suffered from a structural procedural defect under the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure:

  • Adverse Impact on Third Parties: The petitioner sought a retroactive revision of his evaluation marks to secure an appointment. If allowed, this would inevitably rearrange the merit list rankings and displace candidates who had earned spots in the final select list.
  • Settled Rights Protected: The selection process reached its logical conclusion in 2019, and the selected candidates had already been appointed and were actively serving the department for approximately six years by the time of final adjudication. Parties whose statutory rights would be directly harmed or undone cannot be taken by surprise or have their livelihood disturbed behind their backs without being arrayed as respondents.

3. Final Order of the Court

  • Dismissal: Finding no legal merit, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
  • Disposal of Applications: All pending miscellaneous applications linked to the main petition were formally closed, and no orders regarding legal costs were issued.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 274

Bhupesh Kumar V. State of Himachal Pradesh And Others (D.O.J. 13.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share
Next Story

Service Law: Suspension Quashed

June 3, 2026 No Comments

In Sh. Vinay Jishtu v. State of H.P. and Another (CWP No. 4042 of 2026, decided on May 7, 2026), the High Court of Himachal Pradesh adjudicated a service law petition regarding the statutory time limits governing the continuation of a deemed suspension. The petitioner, a Senior Resident Doctor, was placed under deemed suspension following his arrest and custodial detention exceeding 48 hours in connection with a criminal case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the POCSO Act. Although he was released on bail and reported back for duty on December 22, 2025, the respondent-department failed to review his suspension within the mandated 90-day window, issuing a belated extension only on April 7, 2026, due to an ongoing legislative assembly session.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the delayed extension as non-est in the eyes of law. The Court held that under Rules 10(6) and 10(7) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a suspension order automatically loses its efficacy and becomes ipso facto invalid if it is not formally reviewed and extended by a competent authority before the initial 90 days lapse. Administrative exigencies cannot cure a statutory failure, and a belated review cannot retroactively breathe life into a legally dead order.

1. Factual Background and Reliefs Sought

  • The Arrest and Deemed Suspension: The petitioner was serving as a Senior Resident Doctor at Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital (IGMC), Shimla, when he was arrested on October 6, 2025, in connection with an FIR registered under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Consequently, he was placed under deemed suspension effective from his arrest date via an order dated December 8, 2025.
  • Release and Reporting: The petitioner was granted bail on December 20, 2025, and officially reported for duty to the Directorate of Health Services on December 22, 2025, while requesting the revocation of his suspension.
  • The Administrative Delay: The department was fully aware of his release and return by December 22, 2025. Under the statutory framework, the suspension was required to be reviewed within 90 days of his release, making March 21, 2026, the strict deadline. Due to a Vidhan Sabha (Legislative Assembly) session, the department failed to conduct the review on time, later convening a Review Committee on April 7, 2026, to extend the suspension for an additional 90 days.
  • Legal Action: The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition, seeking the quashing of the invalid suspension continuity and demanding full reinstatement with all consequential service benefits.

2. Key Legal Issues & Court’s Observations

A. Mandatory Timelines Under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

The High Court conducted a rigorous textual analysis of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, clarifying the strict interaction between sub-rule (6), sub-rule (7), and its accompanying proviso:

  • The 90-Day Rule: Rule 10(6) dictates that a suspension order must be reviewed by a competent authority, on the recommendations of a designated Review Committee, prior to the expiry of 90 days from its effective date.
  • Calculation of Trigger Point: For a deemed suspension resulting from custodial detention under Rule 10(2), the proviso to Rule 10(7) clarifies that the 90-day countdown commences either from the exact date the government servant is released from detention or from the date such release is formally intimated to the appointing authority, whichever occurs later.
  • Ipso Facto Invalidity: Rule 10(7) explicitly commands that a suspension order “shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended after review”. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that a harmonious construction of these provisions establishes that a timely review is a non-negotiable condition precedent. If the 90-day window closes without a reasoned extension order, the suspension legal architecture collapses automatically by operation of law.

B. Ineffectiveness of Post-Facto Extensions and Administrative Excuses

The state contended that the delay was unavoidable due to the legislative assembly session and that the subsequent review cured the lapse. The High Court firmly rejected this defense:

  • Exigencies Cannot Override Statutes: Routine administrative workloads or ongoing legislative sessions are insufficient legal grounds to bypass or forgive a mandatory statutory deadline.
  • No Retroactive Revival: Relying on the landmark Supreme Court ruling Union of India v. Dipak Mali (2010), the Court held that any review or extension executed after the initial 90 days has elapsed is a complete nullity. An employer cannot review, modify, or extend an order that has already died and lost its legal validity.

C. Human Dignity and Supreme Court Precedents

The Court heavily reinforced its findings by invoking the principles established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015):

  • The apex court has clearly established that the currency of a suspension order must not be prolonged indefinitely. If a formal memorandum of charges or a charge-sheet is not served upon the delinquent employee within three months, the suspension becomes invalid unless a well-reasoned extension order is passed within that strict time frame.
  • These rigid procedural timelines exist to protect universally recognized principles of human dignity and an individual’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, balancing government interests against the severe professional and personal impact of prolonged administrative stagnation.

3. Final Directions of the Court

The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following operational orders:

  • Quashing of Extension: The subsequent extension of the suspension order enacted by the department after the expiry of the initial 90 days is declared non-est and bad in law.
  • Deemed Reinstatement: Because the state failed to properly review or revoke the original suspension within 90 days of December 22, 2025, the suspension became legally invalid upon the expiry of that period. The petitioner is officially deemed to be on active duty immediately following the conclusion of the initial 90 days.
  • Consequential Benefits: The respondents are commanded to grant the petitioner all consequential service benefits accruing from his deemed reinstatement.
  • Disposal: The petition and all connected miscellaneous applications were formally disposed of with no order as to costs.

STPL (Web) 2026 HP 273

Sh. Vinay Jishtu V. State of H.P. And Another (D.O.J. 07.05.2026)

Loading Viewer...

Share

Recent Articles