AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :
M.A. No. 4121/2026 :-
The instant M.A. has been filed seeking condonation of delay of five days in filing the Review Application against the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A. No. 2688/2022. For the reasons stated in the application, which constitute sufficient cause for the short delay involved, the delay of five days is condoned. M.A. No. 4121/2026 is accordingly allowed.
RA Diary No. 9029/2026 :-
The Review Application has been filed on the ground that the order dated 30.06.2026 contains an error apparent on the face of the record arising from an alleged inadvertent interchange of reasoning and conclusions in O.A. No. 2688/2022 and O.A. No. 599/2023. Both matters were filed by the same applicant and were heard together. However, as recorded in the original order, the reliefs claimed in the two OAs were different and separate orders were passed. The prayer made in the RA reads as under :-
“a. Review the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A. No.2688/2022;
b. Hold that the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A. No.2688/2022, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the operative conclusion allowing the Original Application is inconsistent with the findings recorded by this Hon'ble Tribunal and is the result of an inadvertent interchange of the operative conclusions and consequential directions in O.A. No.2688/2022 and O.A. No.599/2023;
c. Correct the said error by modifying the operative portion pertaining to O.A. No.2688/2022 and consequently dismiss O.A. No.2688/2022 in terms of the findings, reasoning and conclusion already recorded by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
d. Pass such consequential and ancillary directions as may be necessary to ensure that the judgments rendered in O.A.No.2688/2022 and O.A. No.599/2023 correctly reflect the findings intended by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
e. Pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
O.A. No. 2688/2022 concerned the applicant’s claim for grant of annual increments notionally for the years 2018 and 2019 and consequential pay fixation. O.A. No. 599/2023 concerned the treatment of the period between the applicant’s dismissal and reinstatement as dies-non and the consequential denial of pay and allowances. The Review Applicant submitted that paragraph 7 of the order in the present OA discusses the dies-non issue and the principle of double jeopardy, which pertain to the controversy in the companion OA. He contended that the discussion has inadvertently found place in the present order and seeks correction of the error.
We have considered the Review Application and examined the order dated 30.06.2026 in O.A. No. 2688/2022. The scope of review is limited. It cannot be used to rehear the original proceedings or to substitute a different decision merely because another view may be possible. At the same time, an apparent accidental error in the judgment may be corrected where the error is evident from the record and its correction does not require a fresh adjudication on the merits.
On comparison of the relief claimed in the present OA with the reasoning recorded in paragraph 7 of the order, we find that the discussion concerning the imposition of dies-non as a further penalty and the principle of double jeopardy relates to the distinct controversy raised in O.A. No. 599/2023. That discussion does not address the issue of notional annual increments which fell for consideration in the present OA. To that limited extent, the Review Applicant pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the order. The error, however, does not warrant reversal of the operative direction issued in the present OA. Paragraph 8 of the order expressly considers the claim for annual increments for the years 2018 and 2019 and directs the respondents to grant those increments on a notional basis, as had originally been allowed vide pay fixation order dated 17.01.2022. This direction corresponds to the relief sought in O.A. No. 2688/2022. The mere presence of an irrelevant discussion concerning the dies-non issue does not, by itself, justify setting aside that direction or dismissing the OA.
Accordingly, the Review Application is allowed in part, limited to correction of the apparent error identified above. The discussion in paragraph 7 of the order dated 30.06.2026 in O.A. No. 2688/2022 concerning the treatment of the intervening period as dies-non and the principle of double jeopardy shall not be read as a determination of the issue arising in the present OA. The issue of dies-non falls for consideration in the companion O.A. No. 599/2023 and shall be dealt with, if warranted, in the review proceedings arising from that matter.
The operative direction contained in paragraph 8 of the order dated 30.06.2026 in O.A. No. 2688/2022, directing grant of annual increments for the years 2018 and 2019 on a notional basis in terms of the original pay fixation order dated 17.01.2022, remains undisturbed. All other findings and directions in the said order, to the extent they concern the relief claimed in O.A. No. 2688/2022, remain unchanged. No opinion is expressed in this Review Application on the merits or outcome of the separate review proceedings concerning O.A. No. 599/2023.
The Review Application stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.