AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member(A)
The present Review Application has been filed seeking recall/review of the order dated 16.05.2023, whereby O.A. No.3553/2018 was dismissed. The same is being considered in terms of Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
In this Review Application, the review applicant has taken a ground that while dismissing the O.A., reliance had been placed on the judgment dated 22.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Single Judge of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in WP No. 578/2013, titled Bhabesh Goswami & Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors., which was declared as not a good law by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 3414/2017 titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. L.K. Bahl & Anr., dated 15.11.2019 and also placed on record a copy of the same. Accordingly, the review applicant is pleading that the order passed in the O.A. by the Tribunal may be recalled/reviewed.
This Tribunal had gone through in detail all the averments/ pleadings in the O.A. and the judgments relied upon by both the sides. The judgment in L.K. Bahl (supra) relied upon by the review applicant now, was neither the part of the pleadings nor produced during the course of hearing, rather in the rejoinder filed by the applicant regarding non-possession of requisite higher qualification, it was submitted as under:
“It is submitted that non-possession of Ph. D Degree cannot be a ground for denying the benefit of PB-4 with AGP of Rs 9000 to the Applicant. It is for the reason that possessing of Ph. D Degree for grant of PB-4 with AGP of Rs. 9000/- is not laid down requirement in Clause 12.3 (c) (iii) & (iv) of Office Order dated 29.07 2010 read with Clarificatory Order dated 08.10.2010. It is submitted without prejudice to the above mentioned pleas that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Pradeep Kumar case held that the employees cannot be deprived of their service benefits including CAS by dint of revised/higher academic qualifications which has been introduced retrospectively.
It is submitted that as per the version of respondents, they have granted relaxation to the Applicant while granting selection grade of Rs. 12000-18300/- w.e.f. 01.01.2007; as the Applicants superannuated before grant of entry level pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. Therefore, the respondents should extended the said relaxation to the Applicant while considering/fixing her pay in selection grade-II/ PB-4 with AGP of Rs. 9000/- in terms of the law laid by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunder Dev Vs. Union of India. Copy of Judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunder Dev case is annexed herewith as Annexure A/21.”
From the above, it is clear that the contention of the applicant was that since the respondents have granted relaxation while granting Selection Grade of Rs.12000-18300/- w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and the applicant superannuated before grant of entry level scale of Rs.8000-13500/-, they should extend the said relaxation while considering/fixing her pay in Selection Grade-II. However, there is no provision for grant of Selection Grade-II to Librarians and PTIs as per the order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the respondents nor the review applicant has been able to produce any document whereby similar benefit has been extended without possessing the requisite qualifications, as claimed by her.
It is seen that by virtue of the instant Review Application, the review applicant has made an attempt to re-argue the matter, reiterating the points and the grounds which have already been raised in the Original Application. While dismissing the O.A. vide order dated 16.05.2023, all the submissions and pleas had already been duly considered by the Tribunal, and a finding had been arrived at.
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.
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & others v. Kamal Sengupta & another, 2008 (8) SCC 612, considered the prevalent restrictions imposed upon the Courts for undertaking a review of their own judgment and have consolidated the same under paragraph 35, which reads as under:-
“35.The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:
(i)The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(ii)The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii)The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv)An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v)An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
(vii)While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii)Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”
The powers of review of this Tribunal are quite limited, and a review applicant cannot be allowed to file an appeal in the guise of a review application. In our considered opinion, the review applicant is only trying to reargue the matter through this RA, which is not permissible in view of the ratio laid down above.
Further, in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 and in Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, it was categorically held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the garb of a Review Application, the Tribunal cannot re-examine the issue, and a review is allowable only if the error pointed out is plain and apparent, on the face of the record.
We do not find that the review applicant before us has been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed in appreciating the facts of the case, and if there has been any wrong appreciation of the facts and the law in the case, the remedy does not lie by way of a Review Application. We are bound by the Apex Court judgments cited above.
In view of the above, the Review Application No.102/2023 is dismissed, in circulation.