Shalu Pruthi v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan - Transfer Dispute

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 8, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Ms Shalu Pruthi vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan And Anr on 25 March, 2026

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 19.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 25.03.2026
+ W.P.(C) 3022/2026 & CM APPL. 14564/2026, CM APPL.
14565/2026
MS SHALU PRUTHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. AS Singh
and Ms. Shriya Sharma,
Advocates.
versus
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN
AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Mr. R.
Gowrishankar and Ms. G.
Dhivyasri, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1.   The present Petition, filed by the Petitioner, assails the
   

   correctness of the order dated 17.09.2025 [hereinafter referred to as
   „Impugned Order‟] passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal
   [hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟] in O.A. No.4052/2024, whereby
   the Original Application („O.A.‟) preferred by the Petitioner came to
   be dismissed.

2.   The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition
   

   is whether the Impugned Order passed by the Tribunal, declining to
   interfere with the transfer of the Petitioner from Delhi to Babugarh
   Cantt., Agra Region, suffers from any illegality, perversity, or failure Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 1 of 15 10:53:55 to exercise jurisdiction, particularly in the context of the Petitioner‟s
   claim for reasonable accommodation on medical grounds, so as to
   warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
   FACTUAL MATRIX:

3.   In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
   

   Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4.   The Petitioner was appointed as a Primary Teacher (PRT) with
   

   the Respondent-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 12.02.2009 and has
   been serving in the said capacity since then. In the year 2022, while
   the Petitioner was posted at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sainik Vihar, New
   Delhi, she was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Karaikal,
   Pondicherry vide order dated 16.09.2022, as part of an exercise of
   rationalization and redistribution of teaching staff across Kendriya
   Vidyalayas.

5.   Aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer, the Petitioner, along with
   

   other similarly situated employees, approached the Tribunal by filing
   O.A. No. 2789/2022. The said Original Application was disposed of
   by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2022, whereby the Petitioners
   therein were permitted to submit representations, and the Respondents
   were directed to consider the same by passing reasoned and speaking
   orders in accordance with the applicable transfer policy.

6.   It is not in dispute that the issue relating to transfers effected in
   

   September, 2022 travelled up to the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.
   24825/2023, wherein, by order dated 19.03.2024, the Respondent-
   Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 2 of 15 10:53:55 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was permitted to undertake a fresh
   exercise by inviting options from the affected teachers for their
   posting, in terms of a proposed process placed before the Supreme
   Court.

1.   Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Respondents invited options
                from the concerned employees, and the Petitioner submitted her three
                preferred stations, namely Faridabad, Ghaziabad and Noida. It is the
                stand of the Respondents that the Petitioner could not be
                accommodated at the aforesaid stations on account of non-availability
                of vacancies.
   

2.   Thereafter, the Petitioner came to be transferred to Kendriya
                Vidyalaya, Babugarh Cantt., Agra Region vide the transfer order dated
                01.06.2024. The Petitioner, aggrieved by her transfer, submitted a
                representation dated 10.06.2024, followed by an email dated
                16.07.2024, inter alia, seeking modification of her transfer on the
                ground that she is suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder and
                requires continued medical treatment and family support.
   

3.   In the interregnum, the Petitioner had also approached the
                Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2527/2024, wherein the Tribunal, vide
                order dated 01.07.2024, recorded the submission made on behalf of
                the Respondents that, in the event the Petitioner submits a
                representation highlighting her medical condition, the same would be
                considered by the competent authority by taking a holistic view. The
                Tribunal accordingly permitted the Petitioner to submit an appropriate
                representation and directed the Respondents to decide the same within Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026                                           Page 3 of 15 10:53:55 the stipulated time.
   

4.  Pursuant thereto, the representation submitted by the Petitioner
                came to be considered by the Respondents, and a speaking order dated
                29.08.2024 was passed by the competent authority, whereby the
                request of the Petitioner for modification/cancellation of her transfer
                was declined.
   

5.  Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by
                filing O.A. No. 4052/2024, inter alia, seeking quashing of the transfer
                and consequential orders, primarily on the ground that her medical
                condition had not been duly considered and that she ought to have
                been accommodated at a station of her choice or in proximity thereto.
   

6.  The Tribunal, after considering the submissions advanced on
                behalf of the parties and perusing the material placed on record,
                dismissed the Original Application vide the Impugned Order, holding,
                inter alia, that the case of the Petitioner does not fall within the
                Medical Disability Ground category under the Transfer Policy dated
                30.06.2023 and that no interference with the administrative decision
                of transfer was warranted.
   

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

1. Contentions of the Petitioner:

13.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner assailed the Impugned Order
primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal has failed to exercise
its jurisdiction in accordance with settled principles governing judicial
review and has mechanically affirmed the action of the Respondents Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 4 of 15 10:53:55 without due consideration of the peculiar facts of the case.

13.2. It was contended that the Petitioner is suffering from Bipolar
Affective Disorder and has been under continuous psychiatric
treatment since the year 2014. It was submitted that her medical
condition necessitates sustained treatment, regular follow-up, and,
importantly, the availability of family support, which, according to the
medical advice placed on record, is essential for her well-being and
stability. It was urged that the Tribunal failed to accord due weight to
this aspect, despite the same being duly brought on record.

13.3. It was further submitted that, in view of her medical condition,
the case of the Petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of the
provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and
that the Respondents, being instrumentalities of the State, were under
a statutory as well as constitutional obligation to provide reasonable
accommodation to the Petitioner. It was argued that the denial of such
accommodation renders the impugned action arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

13.4. It was also contended that the learned Tribunal erred in
accepting the stand of the Respondents that the Petitioner does not fall
within the Medical Disability Ground category under the Transfer
Policy dated 30.06.2023. According to the Petitioner, the relevant
clause, which refers to "any other disease with more than 50% mental
disability", ought to have been interpreted purposively, keeping in
view the object of the statute and the constitutional mandate of non-
discrimination. It was urged that the insistence on a rigid or technical Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 5 of 15 10:53:55 interpretation defeats the very purpose of beneficial legislation.

13.5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed on
the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal v.
Union of India & Ors.1 and Net Ram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors.2, emphasizing the doctrine of reasonable accommodation and the
obligation of the State to adopt a sensitive and humane approach in
dealing with employees suffering from disabilities.

13.6. It was further submitted that the Respondents have acted in a
discriminatory manner inasmuch as, in several similarly situated
cases, requests for modification of transfer have been considered
favourably, whereas the case of the Petitioner has been rejected
without adequate justification. It was urged that such differential
treatment, in the absence of any intelligible differentia, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

13.7. It was also contended that the Petitioner had exercised her
options pursuant to the directions issued in the proceedings before the
Supreme Court; however, she has not been accommodated at any of
the stations opted by her, despite availability of vacancies. It was
submitted that the action of the Respondents in allotting a station
outside her preferred choices, without adequately considering her
medical and personal circumstances, is arbitrary and unreasonable.

13.8. It was lastly submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate
that the Respondents, as a model employer, are required to act fairly 1 (2023) 2 SCC 209 2 (2022) 15 SCC 81 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 6 of 15 10:53:55 and reasonably, particularly in cases involving employees with
medical conditions requiring special consideration.

1. Contentions of the Respondents:

14.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the
Impugned Order and contended that the transfer of the Petitioner has
been effected strictly in accordance with the policy governing
transfers and in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme
Court in proceedings arising out of transfer orders of the year 2022. It
was submitted that the entire exercise was undertaken in a structured
and transparent manner, wherein all affected employees, including the
Petitioner, were afforded an opportunity to indicate their preferred
stations.

14.2. It was submitted that the Petitioner had, pursuant to the said
process, exercised her options by indicating three preferred stations,
namely Faridabad, Ghaziabad and Noida. However, owing to
administrative constraints, including non-availability of vacancies at
the stations of her choice, she could not be accommodated at the said
stations. It was further submitted that, in such circumstances, she was
posted to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Babugarh Cantt., Agra Region, which
is in proximity to her first preferred station, being approximately 90
kms from Faridabad, and the same was effected in accordance with
availability of vacancies and administrative exigencies.

14.3. It was further submitted that, despite being afforded an
opportunity to indicate alternative or additional preferences in
subsequent rounds, the Petitioner did not furnish fresh options and Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 7 of 15 10:53:55 continued to insist upon her initial choices. According to the
Respondents, such insistence amounts to claiming a vested right to be
posted at a particular station, which is impermissible in law.

14.4. With regard to the medical condition of the Petitioner, learned
counsel submitted that the same has been duly considered by the
competent authority while deciding her representation. It was
submitted that, upon examination, it was found that the Petitioner does
not fall within the Medical Disability Ground category as defined
under the Transfer Policy dated 30.06.2023, which specifically
contemplates certain enumerated conditions, including "any other
disease with more than 50% mental disability".

14.5. It was contended that the medical certificate relied upon by the
Petitioner merely indicates that she is undergoing treatment for
Bipolar Affective Disorder and requires follow-up and family support,
but does not certify that she suffers from a mental disability of the
requisite threshold so as to bring her case within the said category. It
was submitted that, in the absence of such certification, the claim of
the Petitioner for special consideration under the policy cannot be
sustained.

14.6. It was further submitted that the Petitioner is a member of a
service having All India transfer liability and has remained posted at
Delhi for a considerable period. It was contended that transfer is an
incident of service and is primarily within the domain of the employer,
and unless the same is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is in
violation of statutory provisions, no interference is called for.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 8 of 15 10:53:55
14.7. It was also submitted that the Tribunal has correctly applied the
settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, including in
decisions such as S.C. Saxena v. Union of India3, Union of India v.
S.L. Abbas4, and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar5, to hold that the
Petitioner cannot insist on a posting of her choice and that the scope of
judicial review in transfer matters is limited.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

1.  This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
                on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
   

2.  At the outset, it is required to be noted that transfer is an
                incident of service and an employee holding a transferable post cannot
                claim, as a matter of right, to be posted at a particular place. The
                power to transfer is vested in the employer and is to be exercised in
                administrative exigencies. Judicial review in such matters is confined
                to examining whether the transfer is vitiated by mala fides, statutory
                violation, or patent arbitrariness.
   

3.  In the present case, the transfer of the Petitioner forms part of a
                larger exercise undertaken by the Respondents in compliance with the
                directions issued by the Supreme Court in proceedings arising out of
                the transfers effected in the year 2022. The said exercise envisaged
                inviting options from the affected employees and effecting postings on
                the     basis      of   availability   of   vacancies   and   administrative
                considerations.
   

3 (2006) 9 SCC 583 4 (1993) 4 SCC 357 5 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659 Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 9 of 15 10:53:55

1.  It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was afforded an
                opportunity to indicate her preferred stations and that she, in fact,
                exercised such option. It is also not in dispute that she could not be
                accommodated at the stations of her choice on account of non-
                availability of vacancies and was, thereafter, posted to Kendriya
                Vidyalaya, Babugarh Cantt., which, as per the Respondents, is in
                proximity to her preferred station. The mere fact that the Petitioner
                was not accommodated at one of her preferred stations does not, by
                itself, render the transfer illegal or arbitrary.
   

2.  The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner
                pertains to her medical condition and the alleged failure on the part of
                the Respondents, as well as the Tribunal, to extend to her the benefit
                of reasonable accommodation.
   

3.  In this regard, it is observed that the competent authority has
                duly considered the representation submitted by the Petitioner and has
                passed a reasoned order dated 29.08.2024. The same is reproduced as
                under:
   

" Whereas, Smt. Shalu Pruthi, PRT was transferred from Kendriya
Vidyalaya, Sainik Vihar to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Karaikal on
administrative ground vide transfer order dated 16.09.2022 for the
purpose of rationalization.

Whereas, KVS filed SLP No.24825/2023 before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India for similarly situated cases of teachers
transferred on administrative grounds in September 2022. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court issued an order dated 19.03.2024 in the SLP
directing KVS to accommodate 1455 teachers (including the
applicant) by considering their three choices of stations and giving
priority based on seniority in age.

Whereas, Smt. Shalu Pruthi, PRT was transferred to KV
Babugarh Cantt. vide order dated 01.06.2024. Aggrieved by the
transfer order, the applicant filed O.A.No.2527/2024 & M.A.
No.2207/2024 before the Hon'ble Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 10 of 15 10:53:55 Delhi, which is disposed by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated
01.07.2024. The operative part of the order is reproduced below:-

"3. Opposing the grant of relief in the present matter, the learned
counsel for the respondents would highlight that pursuant to the
directions as contained in SLP No.24825/2023, an appropriate
decision was taken asking the applicant to give the choice of posting.
One of the choices of posting was given by her which was accepted
vide impugned order dated 01.06.2024. However, learned counsel for
the respondents on instructions would state that if a representation is
made to the competent authority regarding medical illness in peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, a holistic view shall be taken by
the respondents-authority. For the said purpose, the applicant's
counsel agrees to the same making a submission that the said
representation shall be made within a period of 5 days from today in
addition to already made representation dated 10.06.2024 and the
competent authority shall be decide the same within a period of IS
days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till such
time, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents.

1. The OA stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. " As per the representation dated 10.06.2024 & email dated 16.07.2024, the applicant is requesting cancellation of transfer order dated 01.06.2024.

Upon examination of the case. the following observations have been
made:

Smt Shalu Pruthi, PRT (EC:52469) was working at Delhi
station w.e.f 07/12/2009 which was more than 12 years. Hence. she
was transferred from KV Sainik Vihar to KV Karaikal vide order
dated 16.09.2022 for the purpose of rationalization and redistribution
of existing teaching staff.

Whereas. KVS filed SLP No.24825/2023 in similarly situated
cases of teachers transferred on administrative grounds in September
2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In compliance with the order
dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. KVS
invited 03 choices of stations from the concerned teachers vide notice
dated 27.03.2024. The applicant submitted her 03 choice stations as
follows:-

1. Faridabad 2. Ghaziabad 3. Noida. Whereas, teachers who could not be accommodated to their choice stations due to non-availability of vacancy or who did not submit their choices in the 2nd or 3rd round. were allotted KVs near their preferred stations of first round. Accordingly. Smt. Shalu Pruthi, PRT was transferred to KV Babugarh Cantt. vide order dated 01.06.2024 as per the availability of vacancy nearby her choice Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 11 of 15 10:53:55 station of first round. It is only at a distance of approx. 90 Kms from her first choice. i.e. Faridabad.

Whereas. now, the applicant is requesting cancellation of
transfer order on the ground that she is suffering from Bipolar
Disorder.

In this regard. this is to inform that the case of the applicant is
not covered under MDG category as per Annexure-1 of Transfer
Policy 2023. Further, personal difficulties. family circumstances,
health issues of self and dependent family members are matters for the
competent authority to consider, but the decision of administrative
authorities after considering these personal difficulties is considered
final and while making transfers. organizational interest is considered
paramount and the problems and constraints of the employees will be
subordinated.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) shall strive to maintain
equitable distribution of its employees across all locations to ensure
efficient functioning of the organization and optimize job satisfaction
amongst employees. All employees are liable to be transferred
anywhere in India at any point of time and transfer to a desired
location cannot be claimed as a matter of right. While effecting
transfers, the organizational interest shall be given uppermost
consideration and that the problems and constraints of employee shall
remain subservient.

Keeping in view of the facts & circumstances, this is to inform
that the request of the applicant has been considered sympathetically
by the competent authority but the same could not be acceded to and
the representation dated 10.06.2024 & email dated 16.07.2024 of the
applicant stands disposed of in compliance with order dated.
01.07.2024 in O.A. No.2527/2024 passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal,
Principal Bench. New Delhi.

This issues with the approval of the competent authority.
A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the medical condition of
the Petitioner was taken into account; however, it was found that her
case does not fall within the Medical Disability Ground category as
defined under the applicable Transfer Policy dated 30.06.2023.

1. The Transfer Policy dated 30.06.2023, as also noticed by the Tribunal, contemplates certain specified medical conditions, including "any other disease with more than 50% mental disability." The same Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 12 of 15 10:53:55 is reproduced as under:

"Note:- Refer Para No.2 (x) of KVS Transfer Policy "MDG" means an
employee seeking transfer on the basis of one or more of the medical
conditions listed in Annexure-I, affecting himself/herself, spouse or
dependent son and daughter.

TYPE OF DISEASE

1. CANCER

2. PARALYTIC STROKE.

3. RENAL FAILURE

4. CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE AS EXPLAINED BELOW

5. THALASSAEMIA.

6. PARKINSONS DISEASE

7. MOTOR-NEURON DISEASE

8. ANY OTHER DISEASE WITH MORE THAN 50% MENTAL
   DISABILITY

9. AIDS
   The brief description of illness which will be considered as medical
   grounds for the purpose of transfer in terms of transfer policy is as
   under Medical terms referred herein will bear meaning as given in the
   Butterworth's Medical Dictionary"
   The material placed on record by the Petitioner, including the medical
   certificate relied upon by her, indicates that she is undergoing
   treatment for Bipolar Affective Disorder and requires continued
   medical follow-up and family support. However, there is no
   certification on record to establish that the Petitioner suffers from
   mental disability to the extent contemplated under the said policy.

1.  In the absence of such material, the conclusion arrived at by the
                Respondents, and affirmed by the Tribunal, that the Petitioner does
                not fall within the said category, cannot be said to be arbitrary or
                perverse. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under [Article 226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/),
                would not ordinarily substitute its own assessment for that of the
                competent authority in matters falling within the domain of Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026                                                  Page 13 of 15 10:53:55 administrative policy, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary,
                irrational or in violation of statutory provisions.
   

2.  As regards the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the
                provisions of the Rights of Persons with [Disabilities Act, 2016](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97660308/) and the
                judgments of the Supreme Court being [Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123723569/) (supra) and [Net Ram Yadav](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54270863/) (supra), this Court is of the view that
                there can be no quarrel with the proposition that the State is under an
                obligation to ensure non-discrimination and to provide reasonable
                accommodation          to   persons   with   disabilities.   However,      the
                applicability of such principles would necessarily depend upon the
                factual foundation being established in a given case.
   

3.  In the present case, while the Petitioner has relied upon a
                medical certificate indicating that she is undergoing treatment for
                Bipolar Affective Disorder, the material on record does not establish
                that she suffers from a benchmark disability or otherwise satisfies the
                threshold contemplated either under the applicable Transfer Policy or
                for invoking specific statutory entitlements in the factual context of
                the present case. The Tribunal has, therefore, not found sufficient
                basis to extend the relief sought.
   

4.  The contention of the Petitioner that similarly situated
                employees have been granted relief also does not advance her case.
                No specific or comparable material has been placed on record to
                demonstrate that employees identically situated in law and on facts
                were treated differently so as to establish hostile discrimination.
   

5.  It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner has been serving at Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026                                              Page 14 of 15 10:53:55 the Delhi station for a considerable period and is a part of a cadre
                having All India transfer liability. In such circumstances, the decision
                of the Respondents to effect her transfer, in furtherance of
                administrative requirements, cannot be said to be unreasonable or
                unjustified.
   

6.  The Tribunal has taken into consideration the relevant aspects,
                including the medical condition of the Petitioner, the applicable
                policy, and the settled principles governing transfer, and has arrived at
                a conclusion which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality,
                perversity or jurisdictional error.
   

7.  This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that no case for
                interference with the Impugned Order is made out.
   

CONCLUSION & OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS:

1.  In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find
                any merit in the present Petition. The Impugned Order passed by the
                Tribunal in O.A. No. 4052/2024 does not suffer from any perversity,
                illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under [Article
                226](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/) of the Constitution of India.
   

2.  Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. The pending
                applications also stand closed.
   

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

MARCH 25, 2026/jai/pal Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Date:25.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3022/2026 Page 15 of 15 10:53:55