AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
Original Applicant in O.A.533/2021 has moved this Review Application seeking to review and recall the order of the Tribunal dated 28.08.2025. Applicant is a retired Station Manager. He had started service in the Southern Railway as Assistant Station Master on 30.09.1983. While working as Station Master, he was directly recruited as Traffic Apprentice on 31.03.1989. He was regularly absorbed as Deputy Station Superintendent while working in the cadre of Station Master. He was promoted as Station Master-I on 08.12.1995 with the pay of Rs.2000-3200 in level-7 with grade pay of Rs.4600/-. On implementing the cadre restructuring scheme, he was promoted to the scale of Rs.7450-11500 with effect from 01.11.2003. He was granted grade pay of Rs.4800/- with effect from 01.09.2008. He retired from service on 31.03.2019. After retirement, Railway Board issued Annexure-A4 stating that promotion from the post of Assistant Station Master with grade pay of Rs.2800/- to Station Master with grade pay of Rs.4200/- should be ignored for the purpose of grant of MACP and benefit of MACP ignoring promotion from Assistant Station Master to Station Master shall be admissible with effect from 16.02.2018. He was granted 3rd MACP with grade pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 01.09.2018. Applicant claims that Annexure-A5, by which he was granted 3rd MACP with grade pay of Rs.5400/- in level 9 with effect from 01.09.2018 is bad to the extent that he should have been granted the benefit from 16.02.2018. So, he approached the Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure-A5 to the extent it denied his financial upgradation with effect from 16.02.2018 and for consequential directions. The respondents disputed the claim. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, by order dated 28.08.2025 the O.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he has moved the R.A. under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules.
According to the Review Applicant, finding of the Tribunal is totally erroneous and suffers from error apparent on the face of records for the simple reason that Traffic Apprentice or Station Master-III is in grade pay of Rs.4200/- and one appointed in grade pay of Rs.4200/- cannot get a financial upgradation to a lower grade pay of Rs. 2000/-. On being posted as Station Master-III in grade pay of Rs.4200/- the first promotion is to grade pay of Rs.4600/- and in that case he is eligible for 2nd MACP to the grade pay of Rs.4800/- with effect from 01.09.2008 instead of the 3rd MACP. He is eligible for the 3rd MACP with grade pay of Rs.5400/- notwithstanding Annexure-A4 order of the Railways. According to him, the order is liable to be reviewed.
The respondents have opposed the application. According to them, the R.A. is not maintainable. There is no discovery of new or important matter or evidence despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed; there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or any other sufficient grounds warranting review.
According to them, the Original Applicant failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant wants re-examination of the issue and re-interpretation of the applicable Rules and re-appreciation of the facts, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. An error apparent must be self evident and not one that requires long drawn reasoning. A mere disagreement with the findings or interpretation cannot be a ground for review. He is trying for re-hearing of the O.A., which is legally impermissible. He also seeks to introduce new grounds. So, the R.A. is sought to be dismissed.
We heard Sri.Martin G Thottan, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.Thanuja Roshan George, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Admittedly, the applicant had started service as Assistant Station Master in Southern Railway on 30.09.1983. While working as Station Master, he was directly recruited as Traffic Apprentice on 31.03.1989. He was granted MACPs and the 3rd MACP was granted with effect from 01.09.2018. This order was passed long after his retirement. Now, he wants the date to be advanced to 16.02.2018. In the impugned order, we held that for the present purpose service prior to 31.03.1989 cannot be reckoned. Similarly, we also went through in detail the Annexure-A4. We also noticed that in Annexure-R1 representation dated 25.09.2018, submitted on the eve of his retirement, the applicant himself had represented that he was entitled to get grade pay of Rs.5400/- with effect from 01.09.2018. Such an order was passed subsequent to the date of retirement of the applicant.
We had dismissed the O.A. after going through the relevant inputs furnished by both sides. In a Review Application having regard to the limited scope of the jurisdiction, it is not necessary to evaluate the materials again.
From the Review Application itself, it is evident that he has moved the Tribunal again on the premise that we had taken an erroneous view of the contentions raised by the applicant. If the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous, he can seek its rectification through other modes, not by filing R.A.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the attempt of the applicant is to raise contentions once again, which were already considered and rejected. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on authorities also. We are not convinced that any of the grounds available under Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC could be made out by the applicant.
The Review Application lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed. No costs.