Ishwar Singh vs Union Of India Through Secretary And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was employed in the Central Pollution Control Board, the second respondent herein, as Assistant Law Officer, on 01.11.1982. He was promoted as Law Officer, and thereafter as Senior Law Officer in 1989 and 1997 respectively.

He was attached to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the first respondent herein, the first respondent, from the year 2000 onwards. While under such attachment, he earned promotion as Additional director (Law) in the second respondent. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.10.2011.

The applicant filed OA No.3863/2011 claiming various benefits, such as, for treating him against the post of Director (Law) in the first respondent, and for payment of pensionary benefits to him attached to that post, or, in the alternative, to direct the first respondent to extend him the pensionary and other benefits as though he is attached to the Ministry of environment and forests. The OA was opposed by the respondents, and the Tribunal partly allowed the same with the following directions:

"(i) The applicant is entitled to the NPS benefits as per the terms and conditions and features of NPS applicable to the CPCB;

(ii) The applicant has to surrender the cheque received on account of CPF to the 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and

(iii) The second respondent is directed to work out the amount due to and from the applicant for extension of the benefits under the NPS and make payments to the applicant as admissible under NPS within a period of three months from today. It goes without saying that the applicant will cooperate with the 2nd respondent and provide information and documents as required under the NPS. Let the orders and directions, as ordained above, be completed within a period of four months from today."

This application is filed with a prayer to review the order in the OA. The applicant contends that his principal contentions, such as his being entitled to be treated as part of the first respondent Ministry, or for extension of benefits on par with the employees of the first respondent, were not considered. The respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the OA.

We heard Shri Vishwendra Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Review is not a substitute for appeal. The applicant is not able to demonstrate as to what material fact or question or law missed the consideration of the Tribunal, when it decided the OA. A perusal of the order in the OA discloses that every contention of the applicant was taken note of, and the discussion was undertaken with reference to three principal issues, namely, - (i) absorption against the post of Director (Law); (ii) extension of pensionary and medical benefits admissible to the employees of the first respondent; and (iii) extension of new pension scheme, in case the pension is not allowed in the second respondent organisation. Not only these issues, but certain subsidiary issues were also discussed at length with reference to relevant provisions and facts.

We do not find any basis to review the order in the OA. The review application is accordingly dismissed.