AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
This is a Review Application filed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The applicants, the Original Applicants in O.A.325/2017, seek to review the order dated 03.11.2023, by recalling the order and re-hearing the same after affording opportunity of being heard again.
Applicants are/were working in the 3rd respondent, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in categories like Senior Project Assistant, Project Personal Secretary and Personal Secretary holding the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800/- in the 6th Central Pay Commission period. They were granted eligible pay in PB-3 at Rs.15600-39100 based on the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. As per the first schedule, Part-B Section-II of the 2008 Rules, administrative staff/office staff, Section Officer, Personal Secretary or equivalent in PB-2 at Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800/-will be assigned PB-3 at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/- on completion of four years. Following the promulgation of the said Rules, Annexure-A3 Office Memorandum was issued by the Department of Space, whereunder it was decided to assign grade pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 to the categories of employees like Personal Secretary, Project Personal Secretary, Senior Project Assistant, Assistant Catering Manager and Assistant Security Officer, who were drawing grade pay of Rs.4800/- on completion of four years of regular service from the date of assigning the grade pay. Thus the applicants were enjoying the benefit of PB-3 at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-.
According to the applicants, on the introduction of the Revised Pay Rules, 2016, pay band system was abolished and pay matrix system was introduced. Annexure-A5 resolution was passed for implementing the recommendations of the 7th CPC, where it has been specifically stated that the Government has not accepted the recommendations of the Commission on downgrading of posts and that normal replacement will be provided in such cases. Despite the said decision, while implementing the 7th CPC report, in Annexure-A6 OM, the applicants have been placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. So, they say that they should have been included in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5400/- in level-10 and not in level-9. Shifting administrative staff carrying PB-3 to PB-2 results in downgrading, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus they challenge the correctness of Annexure-A6. When the O.A. was filed, representation was under consideration. Later, that representation was rejected and that order also was challenged before the Tribunal. Thus the applicants sought quashing paragraph 9.7 of Annexure-A6 and to declare Annexure-A6 to the extent downgrading them from PB-3 at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs. 5400/-to PB-2 in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800/-.
The respondents opposed all the contentions of the applicants and filed a detailed reply statement. After considering rival contentions and materials, by Annexure-RA1 order dated 03.11.2023 the O.A. was dismissed.
Now, the applicants have moved the instant R.A. contending that such an order was passed without considering the relevant aspects and materials on record. They also say that subsequent to the passing of the order, they have discovered Annexures-RA2 to RA10 orders, which are new and important matters of evidence which could not be produced by them despite exercise of due diligence. They have also placed reliance on the decision in Dr.G.Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University of Science and Technology [2021 SCC online SC 115]. According to them, finding that VSSC is an autonomous institution under Department of Space is an error apparent on the face of the record, there are numerous instances in which the Ministry of Finance itself has permitted granting replacement scale in Level 10 unlike those who were formally drawing grade pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2. So, they wanted to show that PB-3 is equivalent to level-10. They were granted non-functional upgradation of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 and therefore, while granting replacement scale in 7th CPC putting them in level-9 is illegal and amounts to downgradation and therefore, relying on various other documents including the organisational chart of the Department of Space and other proceedings issued by various organisations under the Department of Space they say that in all such cases enhancement has been granted in level-10 and therefore, it is illegal to deny the benefit to the applicants. These aspects were not considered in proper context, when the order was passed, it is submitted
The respondents have opposed the R.A. According to them, the very review is not maintainable. The applicants could not make out any error apparent on the face of the records and that if at all an error in judgment had occurred, remedy is to file an OP(CAT) and not to move for a Review Application under Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC.
According to them, as per the pay structure put forth by the 6th Central Pay Commission, the employees holding a post with grade pay of Rs.4800/- were eligible to be placed in the grade pay of Rs.5400/-, on completion of four years of regular service in the specific posts, while granting non-functional upgradation. As per the Pay Matrix brought out by the 7th Central Pay Commission, the earlier situation of a common grade pay of Rs.5400/-prevailing in PB-2 and PB-3 has been rationalized. Thus the non-functional upgradation is admissible only from Level-8 to Level-9. In fact, through OM dated 14.08.2016, Annexure-A6, the respondents have only supplemented the provisions contained in the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 and CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. Further, there is no justification to compare the pay levels of the applicants with personnel working in other Departments, as the nature of duties and responsibilities and promotional hierarchy are entirely different. Further, they do not share identical career progression path, hierarchy or pay scale. Different posts existing in different departments cannot be considered as equivalent, solely because the grade pay associated with the posts are same. Further, it is submitted that grant of grade pay of Rs.5400/- on non-functional basis is purely non-functional upgradation, which is specific and personal to the employees. It is not at all linked to the arising of vacancies in the grade. Further, it does not bestow any right on the Officer to claim promotion based on the non-functional upgradation. As per the provisions of the 7th CPC, which were accepted by the Government, non-functional upgradation is available across only one level, from Level-8 to Level-9 of the Pay Matrix. The applicants have misconstrued the non-functional grade pay of Rs.5400/- given on completion of four years as upgradation. Non-functional upgradation is, in fact, only conferring a higher grade pay purely on personal basis, and the same is not attached to the post. Therefore, the issue of alleged downgradation does not arise. Moreover, the 7th CPC has rationalized the earlier situation of a common grade pay of Rs.5400 prevailing in 6th CPC Pay Bands 2 and 3, and accordingly, non-functional upgradation is now available from level 8 to level 9 of the Pay Matrix.
Moreover, it is submitted that they have noticed that in a few Centres of ISRO, namely URSC, Bengaluru, SAC, Ahmedabad and NRSC, Hyderabad, orders were issued assigning Level-10 to the administrative personnel under NFSG, violating the instructions issued by the Department of Space vide Annexure-A6 OM. Department has noted that such assignment of Level-10 to administrative personnel under NFSG in disregard to the instructions issued in Annexure-A6. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the issue, the competent authority has viewed the matter seriously and has decided to take corrective action. Department of Space vide separate communication addressed to Directors to issue corrective steps and Annexures-R1(a) to R1(c) have been taken to support the contentions of the respondents. Thus they have sought for dismissing the Review Application.
Repudiating the contentions in the objection and Annexures-R1(a) to R1(c) documents produced by the respondents, the applicants filed rejoinder stating that they are not aware of any such action for reviewing the orders issued in other organisations under the Department of Space. So, they say that the order is liable to be reviewed. They also produced additional documents like Annexures-RA15 to RA23, in support of the contentions raised in the R.A.
Respondents filed additional objections reiterating their contentions and said that the review is not maintainable.
We heard Smt.Girija K Gopal, learned counsel for the Review Applicants and Sri.N.Anilkumar, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondents.
It is to be noted that the O.A. was prosecuted by Adv.Sri.C.S.Manu. The Review Application was filed on change of vakalath by Smt.Girija K Gopal. Whatever it may be, the parameters for reviewing an order is well settled and well defined. Such an application will lie only if the grounds urged in support of the Review Application fall within the scope of Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC. So, our venture is whether the applicants could make out that sufficient grounds have been urged to review Annexure-RA1 order dated 03.11.2023.
While the learned counsel for the applicants reiterated that the applicants should have been given replacement scale in level-10 in the 7th CPC under the cover of a statement like rationalization they should not have been denied the benefit. The other organisations under the Department of Space, as shown by the applicants, have got benefits under level-10 and the historical pay parity cannot be rejected to the applicants under one pretext or the other.
On the other hand, Sri.Anilkumar has submitted that the applicants could not bring home the grounds under Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC and therefore, the applicants will have to seek other remedies available to them, if an erroneous order was passed by this Tribunal.
After hearing counsel on both sides, we have no doubt in our mind that this Tribunal is not justified in making a review of Annexure-RA1 order dated 03.11.2023. The scope and ambit of an order of review under Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC is very clear. Now, the very short question is whether the contentions of the applicants fall within the scope of Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC.
In the oft quoted decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others [AIR 1979 SC 1047] the Supreme Court held as follows:
“But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due digilence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.”
The Tribunal had passed Annexure-RA1 order based on the documents made available by the applicants. Annexure-A1 to A11 series and MA1 were considered while passing the said order. The Tribunal found that there is no justification in claiming replacement scale in level-10 and the contention that it amounts to downgrading was also rejected. Now, on the basis of the additional documents, it is submitted that they have introduced new document, Annexure-RA2, which is organisation chart and say that under the Department of Space, apart from VSSC, there are numerous other organisations and in all such organisations, the replacement scale was granted at level-10 under 7th CPC corresponding to hold pre-revised NFSG 5400/- in PB-3 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. Annexures-RA5 to RA10 orders were issued prior to the issuance of Annexure-RA1 order. Most of the additional documents were issued prior to the order passed by this Tribunal on 03.11.2023.
During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant also placed before us copy of order of the Ahmadabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.411/2017 and also judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition(C) No.2848/2013. This order and judgment were rendered on 17.12.2025 and 20.12.2024, apparently, after passing of the Annexure-RA1 order. Similarly, all the documents show that replacement scale was granted in level-10 in other organisations under the Department of Space prior to the orders passed by this Tribunal on 03.11.2023. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel relying on the decision reported in Uranma Devaswom Board v. Sate of Kerala and others [MANU/KER/1260/2018], the petitioner cannot approach the Court for reviewing the judgment on the basis of documents which were never produced for perusal and examination of the Court. Here, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, these documents were already existing, some of them were available in public domain, still they were never produced and the applicants did not canvass any relief based on such documents. Those are not discovery of an important or new fact and therefore, those documents cannot be relied on to canvass review of the order dated 03.11.2023.
It is also the definite case of the respondents that such orders, now produced, were passed erroneously and replacement scale should have been given in level-9 only from level-8 and grant of replacement scale in level-10 is a clear mistake and the respondents are in the process of correcting the mistake. Now, the applicants want to say that such an attempt has never been made and still replacement scales are being granted at level-10 only. Whatever it may be, from the version of the respondents it is clear that the respondents have a clear case that the grant of non-functional upgradation in level-10 is a mistake and they wanted to correct it.
This Tribunal at this jurisdiction is not expected to go into the veracity and correctness of these rival arguments. If the applicants are of the view that an erroneous decision was rendered by the Tribunal, the remedy is elsewhere and not by filing a Review Application with certain documents which were never made available for perusal by the Tribunal.
We are not convinced that the matter warrants review and the application is dismissed. No costs.