Nisha Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors

Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

The present Review Application (RA) has been filed by the applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rules 17 and 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking review of the Order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 340/2020.

MA No. 4813/2025 has also been filed along with the RA seeking condonation of delay of 49 days in filing the RA. It is submitted that the certified copy of the order/ judgment was received by the applicant’s counsel on 08.08.2025 and was thereafter provided to the applicant in the last week of August 2025. However, as the applicant and her husband were unwell during August–September 2025, she could not contact her counsel to seek legal advice. The applicant contacted her counsel in the first week of October 2025 and was advised to file a review application. Subsequently, at her request, the counsel drafted the RA on 18.10.2025; however, the Tribunal remained closed for vacations/holidays from 18.10.2025 to 26.10.2025. In view of the foregoing circumstances, it is prayed that the delay in filing the RA may kindly be condoned.

It is observed that the RA has been filed on 04.11.2025 with a delay of 49 days. However, considering the reasons mentioned therein, the MA is allowed and the delay in filing the RA is hereby condoned.

Having regard to the grounds urged in the Review Application as well as the facts of the case, the thrust of the learned counsel’s argument is that the order under review is perverse and illegal, as it failed to take note of the decision dated 30.11.1999 rendered in Atma Ram Thakur & Ors. vs GNCTD & Ors. (OA No. 265/1996). However, the applicability of Atma Ram Thakur (supra) judgment pertains to the merits of the matter, and therefore, we proceed to consider the Review Application on its own merits.

As per the records, it is undisputed that the applicant was appointed in the year 2011 through a competitive examination. At the time of appointment, the applicant was fully aware of the prescribed pay scale of Rs.5200–20200/- with a Grade Pay of Rs.1900/- for the post of Tailor Master. The request of the review applicant to revise her pay to the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- on the basis of Atma Ram Thakur (supra) decision, which was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, cannot be accepted, particularly, as that judgment was delivered on 30.11.1999.

It is also relevant to note that on 24.03.2015, a proposal was initiated to forward a request to the Ministry of Finance seeking extension of pay scales to factory staff of the Delhi Prison Department for the posts of Carpenter Master (01 post), Tailor Master (02 posts), and Weaving Master (02 posts). Subsequently, on 27.07.2015, it was observed that since the matter involved policy considerations as well as financial implications, the proposed revision of pay scales would be referred to the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) for examination, along with proper justification and clear recommendations. The Pay Commission, being an expert body, is entrusted with examining, reviewing, evolving and recommending feasible changes concerning pay, allowances, and other benefits of Central Government employees. Accordingly, the proposal was referred to Chairman of the 7th CPC.

Unless and until specific recommendations are made by the 7th CPC regarding the pay scales for the posts in question, the issue, being a matter of policy, cannot be adjudicated within the present proceedings. Even otherwise, nothing prevents the review applicant or the respondents from placing their claims, if any, before the appropriate expert body, namely, the Pay Commission.

Accordingly, it is observed that the order was passed after carefully gone through the pleadings and the detailed arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the respective parties, which is clearly evident from the ibid Order. The review applicant has not been able to put forward any new argument or any error apparent in the Order passed in the O.A. and has reiterated the same points and arguments that he has already submitted in the O.A. All these submissions and pleas had already been duly considered by the Tribunal in the Order dated 24.07.2025.

It is stare decisis that even when the order passed is wrong and erroneous, the R.A. would not be maintainable. It can be entertained only on the limited grounds, such as (i) there is an error apparent on the face of record, (ii) some such documents, which could not be produced at the time of final adjudication despite due diligence, are brought to the notice of the Court with Review Application and (iii) there is some other sufficient reason.

We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material, which was not available with the review applicants despite due diligence at the time of final hearing. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the Order passed by the Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. By way of this Review Application, the review applicant has made an attempt to reargue the matter, reiterating the points and the grounds which have already been raised in the Original Application, which is not permissible in terms of the provisions contained in Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Order XLVII, Rule (1) of CPC, and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160.

In view of the above, the Review Application No.179/2025 is dismissed, in circulation.