AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tapan Sen, J.—This Review Application is directed against the Order dated 16.02.2006 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WPCT No. 023 of 2006, whereby where under, the writ application was dismissed holding that this Court did not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the Tribunal passed on 23.12.2005 in OA No. 129/ A&N/2001.
At the very outset we posed a question to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Applicants (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Review Applicants) as to whether it would not be proper for this matter to be placed before the same Hon''ble Judge who had passed the Order. In answer to the aforementioned question, the learned Counsel for the Review-Applicant cited before us a Five Judges judgment passed in the case of K.N. Mishra v. Union of India by Hon''ble Mr. Justices Altams Kabir, J.; Ashok Kumar Ganguly, J.; Aloke Chakravarty, J.; Dilip Kumar Seth, J. and Pravendu Narayan Sinha, J., reported in ILR 2004 (8) A& N Series page 70; wherein it was held in paragraph 31 as follows:
In the special circumstances prevailing in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, an application for review of an order passed by a Bench sitting in writ jurisdiction can be heard and decided by succeeding Circuit Bench consisting of a different set of Judges even without any special assignment by the Hon''ble Chief Justice, notwithstanding the fact that the Judges of the previous Bench are is still functioning as Judges of the Calcutta High Court.
In view of the aforementioned judgment, we proceeded to hear this Review Application on merits because by an earlier Order dated 22.3.2006 passed in this Application, a Davison Bench of this Court had directed that the Review Application will be heard on merits, and that it shall be placed before the next Circuit Bench. It would, therefore, perhaps to be relevant to quote the aforementioned Order dated 22.3.2006:
The review application will be heard on merits The notice of this application be served upon the Respondent authorities. Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned Advocate accepts such notice on behalf of the Respondents.
The Respondent authorities will file their affidavit-in-opposition to the review application by three weeks from date, reply, if any, thereto by filed by two weeks thereafter.
This application be placed ''for hearing'' before the next Circuit Bench.
There will be no interim order at this stage
Sd/- (Prabir Kumar Samanta, J.)
Sd/- (Alok Kumar Basu, J.)
Since this Review Application arises out of a Writ Petition that was numbered as WPCT No. 023 of 2006, it would be relevant to notice the facts as gathered from the pleadings contained in the said Writ petition together with those appearing in the Review Application as well as from the photocopy of the petition being OA No. 46/A&N/2002 which was produced by the learned Counsel for the Review Applicants on the asking of the Court.
The Review-Applicants were the Petitioners in the aforementioned writ petition being WPCT No. 023 of 2006.
In the aforementioned writ petition, these Review Applicants stated that they were Veterinary Stockman working under the A & N Administration under various Veterinary Sub-dispensaries and Veterinary hospitals, Dispensaries. They were all initially appointed as Veterinary Dressers on different dates starting with effect from 5.12.1986. The post-of Veterinary Dressers at the relevant time was the feeder post of Veterinary Stockman in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 750-940/-. On or about 28.6.1996, the Review-Applicants were confirmed on the post of Veterinary Dressers, In the meantime the Fifth Central Pay Commission came into force which clubbed together the Pay scales of Rs. 775-1025; Rs. 800-1150; Rs. 825-1200/- and Rs. 950-1500/- to the scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- and also granted the scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- to all categories of employees, who were acting under the grade of Rs. 1200-2040/-. It appears that there was some anomaly in the recommendations made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and as a result thereof, on 17.4.1997, the A & N Administration constituted a Anomaly Removal Committee Vide Order No. 1193.
This Committee, after deliberating on and going through the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission as well as the proposals submitted by the Director of Animal Husbandary & Veterinary Services, recommended, vide their letter dated 8.10.1998 (See page 56 Annexure P-7 of the Review Application), that the departments should ensure that the benefits of the upgraded scales of pay are extended to the employees who fulfilled the conditions as prescribed by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. By reason of the aforementioned recommendations dated 8.10.1998, the Committee took into consideration the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission in the following manner:
The Vth CPC has recommended Metric qualification for entry grade posts of Dresser, Stockman and Compounder, graduate in Biological Science for Livestock Supervisor and VIII Std. Passed for Para Vety, Attendant. Since till, now no such mandatory requirement was made by any CPC, it is very difficult to obtain Metric Qualification by the existing ordeal staff who have put more than 20-25 years of service. Secondly, if this criteria is implemented to existing staff, old administrative set up and with requirements will be severely hampered. Compounder and Sr. Compounder are in-charges of Vety. Sub Dispensaries and responsible for all activates in the field of Animal Husbandry as well as Vety. Services. The post of Compounder was a promotional post (75%) from Stockman and Stockman were promoted from Para Vety. Attendant as well as Dresser a certain degree of experience inspite of qualification is essential in the Vety. Services requirement therefore, a Junior Official may not be allowed to draw a high emoluments than the Supervisor.
Therefore, for the existing staff having more than 10 years experience the minimum qualification may be relaxed from Metric to VIII std. passed and these persons by virtue of their experience in the field will be able to maintain the records and handle other requirements as thus work will not be hampered and both part ''B'' and part ''C scale can be implemented.
However, for future recruitments, the Recruitment Rules will be amended as per the Vth CPC criteria.
Regarding the para Vety, Attendant, it was clarified that the Para Vety. Attendant includes all the Attendants, presently designated in the Islands as Bull Attendant, Poultry Attendant, Cleaner and Attendant (Goat and Pig.) However, in Part ''B'' recommendations mentioned as para Vety. Attendant including Animal Attendant ( Bull Attendant/ Syce/Came Attendant/Leopard. Thus, the specific mentor of any of the Attendant posts is not there.
However, the name of other specific Para Vety. Attendant post like Poultry Attendant, Attendant (Goat and Pig) and Vety. Cleaner may be included to extend the benefit.
[Underlining by this Court]
The recommendations of the Committee, in so far as Compounder/Stockmen were concerned, were that they should be given the upgraded scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996.
Pursuant to the aforementioned recommendations dated 8. 10.1998 the Directorate of Animal Husbandary & Veterinary Services, Andaman & Nicobar Administration, issued an Office Order on 28.10.1998 being Office Order No. 1175 (See Annexure P-8 at page 62 of the Review Application), whereby and where under, while implementing the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- was granted to the Vet. Dressers/ Stockman/ Compounder subject to and provided that the incumbents were matriculates and had, to their credit, one years'' Certificate Course plus one years'' Hospital/farm attachment and one years'' experience, or they were standard VIM passed candidates having one years'' Certificate Course plus one Years'' Hospital/farm attachment Plus 10 years'' experience as Dressers/Stocknien/Compounders.
It appears that being aggrieved by the aforementioned imposition of the condition to the effect that the beneficiaries must have passed Vlllth standard and above, another set of employees (viz, Dharam Das and Ors.), who had all been initially, appointed since 1964 as Bull Attendants/Poultry Attendants/Veterinary Dressers and Veterinry Cleaners, filed an Original Application being OA No. 22/A&N/1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. (See Page 103 Annexure P-16 A of the Review Application).
Upon a perusal of the order passed thereon on 20.9.2G00 (See Annexure P-16/A at page 103 of the Review Application), it would appear that the grievance of those persons was that inspite of recommendations made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission to give the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- to the Veterinary Stockmen, they were deprived of such benefit merely because they did not possess the minimum educational qualifications referred to above. However, the said OA No. 22/A&N/1999 was disposed of on 20.9.2000 by directing the 1st Respondent therein ( viz. The Lt. Governor, Administrator, A& N Islands, Raj Niwas, Port Blair) to consider the extension of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to those applicants in the light of the recommendations of the Anomaly Removal Committee and other facts and in the light of the recommendations on the subject and then to take a decision within a period of three months from the date of the order. It was further ordered that if it was decided to extend the said pay scale to them, then the monetary benefits flowing out of such benefits should be made available to them within two months thereafter. The speaking order was to be communicated to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of the decision.
It appears that on the basis of the aforementioned Order Passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 22/A&N/1999, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, issued a letter dated 30.5.2001 addressed to the Assistant Secretary, A & N Administration, Wherein, while referring to the aforementioned Order dated 20.9.2000 passed in OA No. 22/A&N/1999 (See Annexure P-9 at page 63-A of the Review Application), he stated that the matter had been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, which observed that the 5th Central! Pay Commission (CPC) had recommended the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 only for such posts of stockmen etc. who were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 to Rs. 1200-2040, and as such, the action of the UT Administration in allowing the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to those stockmen, who had passed the Vlllth standard and who were in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 775-1025, was not appropriate. It is relevant to note that the Review Applicants had themselves stated in paragraph 3 of WPCT No. 23 of 2006 that they were initially appointed as Veterinary Dressers, which is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Venterinary Stockmen in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 750-940/- at present revised at Rs. 2550-3300/-.
Accordingly, by reason of the above letter dated 30.5.2001 the Administration was advised to place all these incumbents to the post of Veterinary Stockmen working in UT in the normal replacement scale of Rs. 2610-3540/- which corresponded to their pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 775-1050/- with immediate effect.
thereafter on 15.6.2001, Order No. 789 came to be issued by the Directorate of Animal Husban''dary & Veterinary Services, A & N Administration, whereby and where under and in pursuance of the operative portion of the direction given by the Tribunal on 20.9.2000 (in OA No. 22/A & N/1999 referred to above), the claim of those applicants therein (i.e. the applicants in OA No. 22/A &N/ 1999) was not acceded to. The relevant portion of that Order being Order No. 789 dated 15.6.2001 is therefore, worth reproducing:
...It appears from the judgment of the Hon''ble Tribunal that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the Anomaly Removal Committee set up by the Administration had recommended the extension of the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000 to the promotes for the post of Vety. Stockman even though they do not possess the minimum required qualification suggested by the Vth Code of Civil Procedure.
(Emphasis applied).
Pursuant to the Submission of the learned Advocate for the Respondents, the Hon''ble Tribunal in the concluding part of the judgment was pleased to observe that the first Respondent (LG) will consider the extension of the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to the category of the applicants in the light of the recommendations of the anomaly. Removal Committee and other facts and also in the light of the Rules on the subject. The Anomaly Removal Committee set up by the Administration recommended the upgraded scale of pay to the post of Vety Stockman with effect from 1.1.96 upon approval of the Hon''ble LG but gave a rider that the Department entrusted with the implementation of extension of the upgraded scale of pay should ensure that the benefit of the upgraded scale of pay are extended to only to those employees who fulfill the conditions as prescribed by the Vth CPC. The Vth CPC recommended the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/-for the posts of Vety. Stockman only to those who possesses the minimum educational qualification of matriculation, two years certificate course plus one year experience. The instant applicants unquestionably do not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed by the Vth CPC for their eligibility to the upgraded scale of pay. Let it be placed on record that the Anomaly Removal Committee did not recommend that even when the employees appointed to the post of Vety Stockman do not possess the requisite qualification, they would be entitled to the upgraded scale of pay and thus the submission of the learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondents before the Hon''ble Tribunal was not Commensurate of the facts of the matter. However, a reference was made to the Govt, of India in the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying on 16.11.2000 and the last reminder was made on 28.5.2001 and the Govt, of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying in their File No. 46-6/2000/ Admn-lll dated 30th May, 2001 observed as follows:
...that the matter has been examined in, consultation with the Ministry of Finance, Deptt. Of Expenditure who has observed that the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) has recommended pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- Only for such posts of Stockman etc. which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 950-1500/- to Rs. 1200-2040. As such the action of the UT administration to allow the ay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to those Stockman who were 8th standard pass and were in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 775-1025 is not appropriate. As such the UT Administration is advised to place all the incumbents to the post of Veterinary Stockman in the UT in the normal replacement pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 775-1050 with immediate effect. Further, the UT administration should in future seek specific clearance of Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) Prior to extending higher pay scales to any post for which the 5th CPC has not made either specific or a general recommendation.
Accordingly the prayer of the Applicants cannot be acceded to.
[emphasis by underlining by this Court]
Subsequent to the aforementioned Order/Letters dated 30.5.2001 and 15.6.2001, the Assistant Secretary (Pers.) of the A & N Administration Secretariat, issued a Letter dated 17.8.2001 (See Page 64, Annexure P-10 of the Review Application), addressed to the Director of Animal Husbandary & Veterinary Services, A & N Administration, wherein, while referring to the judgment/ Order passed in OA No. 22/A&N/1999, and while also referring to the letter dated 30.5.2001 referred to above as well as to the reasoned order dated 15.6.2001 quoted above, he stated that the benefit of upgraded scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- given to the Stockmen vide Office Order No. 1175 dated 28.10.1998, should be reviewed/revised immediately, so as to ensure the placement of all the incumbents to the post of Veterinary Stockmen in the normal replacement pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540/-corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 775-1025/-with immediate effect.
Thereafter, on 11.9.2001 (see Page 65 Annexure P-11 of the Review Application), the Directorate of Animal Husbandary & Veterinary Services, A & N Administration issued Office Order No. 1112 dated 11.9.2001 whereby and where under, while referring to the aforementioned letter dated 17.8.2001, the benefit of the upgraded scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- which had been extended to the Vererinary Stockmen, was withdrawn and replaced by the scale of Rs. 2610-3540/- with immediate effect.
Being aggrieved by the aforementioned Orders, the Review-Applicants then moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench vide OA No. 129/ A &N/2001 wherein they challenged the aforementioned Order/Letter dated 30.5.2001 as well the Order dated 17.8.2001, referred to above. (See Page 38 of WPCT No. o23 of 2006).
on 26.9.2001, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) took up the matter and directed the same to be listed before the next Circuit Bench at Port Blair and, in the meantime, directed that the Order dated 11.9.2001 shall remain stayed till the next date (See Annexure P- 12-A at Page 70 of the Review Application).
Thereafter on 19.11.2001 [page 71 Annexure P-12 A (cont''d) of the Review Application], the matter was again adjourned to the sitting of the Circuit Court as to enable the Respondents to file their reply. But, in the meantime, the interim order was directed to continue till further orders were passed.
On 28.1.2002 [ See page 72 Annexure P-12-A (cont''d) of the Review Application], the aforementioned OA No. 129/A & N/2001 was admitted for final adjudication and it was directed that the interim Order shall continue till final disposal of the case. It was thereafter, i.e. on 23.12.2005, the matter was taken up alongwith OA No. 46/A&N/2002, which was filed by the other set of employees referred to in paragraph 10 hereinabove and who had moved OA No. 22/A&N/1999. By judgment dated 23.12.2005, the Tribunal rejected the contentions of both the Review Applicants as well as of the Applicants of the said other OA No. 46/A&N/2002 and held, that there was no ground for any interference with the decision of the authorities namely, the decision dated 30.5.2001 and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss both the OA applications.
Being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and/or Order dated 23.12.2005, these Review Applicants filed WPCT No. 023 of 2006 before this Court and by an Order dated 16.2.2006, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has already protected the interest of the writ Petitioners by providing that as and when recovery is made, they shall be entitled to challenge the legality of such recovery in accordance with law.
This Court is satisfied that there is no scope for any interference on merits, the writ application is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (G.C. Gupta, J.)
Sd/- (Indira Barverjee, J.)
It is against the aforementioned Order dated 16.2.2006 that the present Review Application has been filed.
Mr. A.S. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Review Applicants submitted that one of the contentions that he had raised before the Writ Court was that the Order / judgment of the Tribunal passed on 23.12.2005 was totally erroneous. In this context Mr. Roy drew our attention to the very opening sentence of the Order dated 23.12.2005, which says that" the impugned orders in both the above OAS are similar having been passed in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal regarding grant of upgraded pay-scale for Veterinary Stockman�." Mr. Roy submitted that whereas in OA No. 129/A&N/2001, the grievance of the Review-Applicants was directed against the orders dated 30.5.2001and 17.8.2001, the grievance of the other set of Applicants in OA No. 46/ A&N/2002, was totally different, and therefore, it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to have said that the impugned orders are similar in both the O As. He submits that the Writ Court did not even care to notice these submissions.
In order to satisfy ourselves with regard to the aforementioned submissions being raised and/ or canvassed at the Bar by Mr. Roy, we asked him to handover a copy of the OA No. 46/A&N/2002, which he did, and which is being retained with the records of this case.
Upon a perusal of the said petition, i.e.. OA No. 46/A&N/2002, It is evident that the same was filed against the Order dated 15.6.2001, which has been quoted above. We have also seen that in the aforementioned OA No. 46/ A&N/2002, the Applicants therein were the same as in OA No. 22/AN/1999 and it was their grievance that it was impossible for them to acquire the qualifications as stipulated in the Order dated 28.10.1998.
Thus, upon a perusal of the prayer made in OA No. 46/A&N/2002, there is a reference to the Order dated 28.10.1998 which, according to those Applicants, was not correct. The reason why they attacked the Order dated 28.10.1998 was because they submitted inter alia, at paragraph (xxii) at page 48 of the aforementioned OA No. 46/A&N/2002 that the educational qualifications, Training certificates etc. were not their preconditions of service when they had been appointed on their feeder posts much prior to the Notification of the Recruitment Rules, 1987 (Annexure-C) Consequently, they stated that the Order No. 1175 dated 28.10.98 as well as the Memos dated 28.1.99 and the Order No. 789 dated 15.6.2001 plus the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission should be prospective and should not have retrospective effect.
In the case of the Review-Applicants, on the other hand, they say that having implemented and having giver them the scale of Rs. 4000-6000, as they are educationally more superior, the Government should not and could not subsequently withdraw that scale by their Letter dated 30.5.2001 as well as by the other Letters dated 17.8.2001 and 11.9.2001.
Thus the Order dated 28.10.1998 is common both to the Review - Applicants as well as to the other set of employees referred to above. While the Review Application assert that the same should be made applicable upon them, the other employees concerned in OA No. 46/A&N/2002 say that they are deprived from enjoying those benefits for want of educational Qualifications.
We therefore reject the argument of the learned Counsel to the effect that the Tribunal Committed an error by observing that the impugned order in both OAS are similar. We reject this contention because in OA No. 46/ A&N/2002, the impugned Order, as has been stated above, was the Order dated 15.6.2001 which has been quoted above. Upon a perusal of that order, it is evident that the same was passed on the basis of the letter dated 30.5.2001. The letter dated 30.5.2001 was a subject matter of challenge in OA No. 129/A&N/2001. Therefore, the Tribunal was absolutely correct in saying that the impugned orders in both the OAS, were "similar".
The other arguments to the effect that the Tribunal ought not to have been clubbed the two OAS together because the Review Applicants were educationally superior, while the other applicants were educationally inferior, is also not acceptable to us for the simple reason that the question of educational qualifications were inserted by the A & N Administration by their letter dated 28.10.1998 being Order No. 1175 and it was certainly contrary to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. In this context the letter dated 30.5.2001 is itself very specific and clear on this issue. The said Letter dated 30.5.2001 is Annexure P-9 at page 63-A of the Review Application which corresponds to Annexure R/4 appended to the Affidavit-in opposition filed by the Respondents. The same reads as follows:
Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. 51-63/99-Dev.1 (AH) dated 30/31st January, 2001 and D.O. letter of Same No. dated 28th May, 2001 and to say that the matter has been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure who have observed that the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) has recommended pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 only for such posts of Stockman etc. Which were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 to Rs. 1200-2040. As such the action of the UT administration to allow the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to those Stockman who were 8th standard pass and were in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 774-1025 is not appropriate. As such the UT administration is advised to plea all the incumbents to the post of Veterinary Stockman in the UT in the normal replacement pay scale of Rs. 2610-3540 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 775-1050 with immediate effect. Further, the UT administration should in future seek specific clearance of Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) prior to extending higher pay scales to any of the post for which the 5th CPC has not made either specific or a general recommendations.
[Emphasis by underlining is supplied by this Court]
For the aforementioned reasons, we are satisfied that the observations of the Division Bench made on 16.2.2006 in WPCT No. 023 of 2006, inter alia observing that "this Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal", are absolutely justified. We are, therefore, not at all convinced with the arguments and/or submissions of Mr. Roy to the effect that the Order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, it should be reviewed.
Mr. Roy vehemently then argued that the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was totally erroneous, and that being the position, it was the duty of the Division Bench to have taken note of those errors. We have already held that the Tribunal was not at all in error, in delivering its judgment on 23.12.2005, and therefore, this Court also was perfectly justified in dismissing the writ petition.
Mr. A.S. Roy cited a number of judgment in order to highlight and /or submit that the judgment of this Court passed in WPCT No. 23 of 2006 was passed in a "perfunctory manner" and therefore, it is our duty, as a Court of Review, to look into the same and undo the wrong. In this context Mr. Roy refers to the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholics and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors. DIR 1954 SC 526 He refers to paragraph 34 and submits that the judgment/Order dated 16.2.2006 has been passed in a superficial and summary manner, and therefore, it is an error apparent on the face of the record. We have no hesitation in rejecting the aforementioned contention because the judgment and/or Order of the Division Bench was passed in the light of and in the background of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal. We have carefully gone through the said judgment of the Tribunal and we have already indicated that the same is perfectly justified, and it warranted no interference at all. That being the position, it was not al all necessary for the Division Bench to have proceeded to delve deep into the matter only for the satisfaction of the litigants. For the said reason, we are of the view that the judgment cited by Mr. Roy cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of this case.
The other judgments cited by Mr. Roy is the case of S. Nagaraj and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, . At paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said judgment, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that "Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and that the rules of procedures and technicalities of law should not stand in the way of Justice". In the background of the aforementioned concept, their Lordships in paragraph 19 held that "Review literally and even judicially means reexamination or reconsideration."
We have no hesitation in absolutely agreeing with the aforementioned proposition of law, but at the same time, we must hasten to add that these propositions would not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case because we do not find that there has been any injustice. On the contrary, we find that what the Government did was to undo the wrong committed by the A & N Administration by issuing Letters/Orders dated 30.5.2001. The Order dated 30.5.2001 was duly considered while passing the reasoned Order dated 15.6.2001. In the process of doing so and correcting the mistake committed by the Order dated 28.10.1998, a number of Orders were passed subsequently, i.e. the ones dated 30.5.2001, 15.6.2001, 17.8.2001 and finally, 11.9.2001. All those Orders/Letters including the erroneous Order itself (i.e. the letter dated 28.10.1998) became subject matters of challenge in some way or the other. If ultimately, the Tribunal set at res such dispute which had arisen on account of the actions taken by the A & N Administration contrary to what the Fifth Central Pay Commission had said, then we do to find that for such a correct approach, the aforementioned principles of law should be stretched and brought to apply in the case of the instant Review Applicants.
Mr. Roy then relied on the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, J and K and Others Vs. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Others, in order to inform this Court that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the Review Application is maintainable. We are conscious of the fact that a review would certainly be maintainable provided there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case, we do not find any such error. Consequently, this judgment also does not come to the rescue of the Review-Applicant.
Mr. Roy then referred to the judgment delivered in the case of M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala and Another, in support of the contention that as Court of Record, the High Court has a duty to review its own judgment. We have such powers of Review, but the same should be exercised only to prevent gross injustice or to undo an error apparent on the face of record. Neither of these are to be found in the facts and circumstances of this case. Consequently, this judgment also does not come to the rescue of the Review-Applicants.
It is not necessary for us to consider the other judgments cited by Mr. Roy, because we are satisfied that the High Court did not commit any mistake which calls for any interference by this Court under its Review Jurisdiction.
For the reasons, stated above, we hold that there is no merit in the Review Application and it is, accordingly, Dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Tapen Sen, J.
I agree