AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MA No.4236/2026
This MA has been filed by the review applicants (original respondents) seeking condonation of 130 days delay in filing the instant RA.
For the reasons mentioned therein, the MA is allowed. Delay in filing the RA is condoned.
RA No. 111/2026 in OA No.3172/2017
Through the instant Review Application filed under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the review applicants (original respondents) have sought review of order dated 07.04.2026 passed in OA No.3172/2017. The operative portion of the said order in OA reads as under:-
“41.Consequently, the action of the respondents in denying the benefit is held to be arbitrary and unsustainable. Thus, the impugned communications/orders whereby the claim of the applicant for stepping up of pay has been rejected are hereby set aside and quashed.
42.The Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicant at par with his immediate junior from the date the junior commenced drawing higher pay and to grant all consequential benefits. 43. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant shall not be entitled to interest on arrears.”
The review applicants through the instant RA submit that the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, as the sole factual premise upon which the Original Application was allowed no longer exists. It is submitted that the direction passed by the Tribunal in order under review was based on the premise that the juniors of the applicant were drawing a higher basic pay. However, the fundamental factual position placed before this Tribunal was incomplete, as the original applicant concealed the material fact that the pay disparity was not a permanent anomaly but a result of an erroneous initial pay fixation granted to the junior officers at the time of their 3rd MACP upgradation. Upon subsequent examination, the department detected that the pay of the junior officers had been inadvertently over-fixed. To rectify this administrative error, the department issued fresh pay fixation orders revising and correcting the pay of all four junior officers, namely, SI Subodh Kumar, SI Bheem Singh, ASI Jeewan Singh and ASI Satpal Singh, thereby bringing their pay structure at par with that of the original applicant. Consequently, the excess payments made to the junior officers were recovered, and after this re-fixation, all officers draw equal and correct pay, completely eliminating any alleged pay anomaly between the original applicant and his juniors. Since the erroneous pay fixation of the junior officers has already been rectified and the excess recovery effected, enforcing the direction to step up the review respondent's pay would result in perpetuating an error and granting an undue financial benefit not permissible under the rules.
Since the judgment dated 07.04.2026 was rendered without considering the critical fact of the re-fixation and rectification of the juniors' pay, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting the recall of the said order under review.
We have carefully considered the grounds raised in the Review Application and examined the order against which the review has been sought. A perusal of the record reveals that the core issue regarding the disparity in pay between the Original Applicant (Review Respondent herein) and his named juniors was extensively examined by this Tribunal while passing the main judgment dated 07.04.2026. The contention now raised by the Review Applicants regarding the re-fixation or rectification of the pay of junior officers does not constitute an "error apparent on the face of the record." Administrative actions or post-facto re-fixations initiated by the department after the adjudication of the matter do not automatically erase the accrued rights of the applicant under the relevant pay rules at the material time. Neither the original applicant nor respondents in OA placed any document on record through their respective pleadings or at the time of hearing to the effect that the pay of the juniors of the applicant was refixed at par with the applicant. Therefore, this Tribunal had decided the OA on the basis of documents made available by both the sides.
There appears to be no error of fact or law which invites intervention of this Tribunal under the review. The review applicants are trying to re-argue the matter and are bringing out the facts which have already been duly considered and were not made available or not in existence at the time of passing of the order under review.
The scope of review is limited to situations where a new evidence has been discovered, which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant(s) earlier either on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. These principles have been reiterated in :-
Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2004) SCC (L&S) 160
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 596
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr 2008 (9) SCALE 509
Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Ors. 2007 9 SCC 369
On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that “the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision.”
At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-
“(i)The power of Tribunal to review it order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1) of CPC.
(ii)The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii)The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds
(iv)An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (f).
(v)An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court
(vii)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii)While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(ix)Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”
From the above, it is amply clear that existence of error apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for entertainment of the Review Application. We are convinced that there is no error in our order dated 07.04.2026 passed in the captioned OA and the same does not warrant any interference through review jurisdiction.
The review application is accordingly dismissed in circulation.