AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Review Application (RA) has been filed by the applicant praying that the order of this Tribunal dated 19.10.2023 passed in OA No.3116/2022 should be recalled and the OA may be re-heard. The RA is in respect of order dated 19.10.2023 passed in OA No.3116/2022. The said OA was filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
“a.) Call for the records of the Commission.
b. Declare that the action of the Respondent Settlement Commission communicated on 18th October, 2021 is clearly illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
c. Direct the Respondents to make payment of the dues along with interest at the rate of 18%.
d. Pass any other order or direction this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
After considering the pleadings in the OA and hearing both the parties, this Tribunal dismissed the OA as the OA lacked merit.
The review applicant in paragraph 4 of the RA has mentioned 11 grounds stating that there is an error on the face of record in the findings of the Tribunal as contained in the aforementioned order. After receiving the RA, the officers of opposite party and respondents in the RA have filed their own contention vide affidavit dated 22.03.2025 filed on 24.03.2025.
The applicant who appears in person reiterated the position mentioned in the RA. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the reply filed on 24.03.2025, states that there is no error apparent on the face of facts and law in order dated 19.10.2023.
Heard applicant in person and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records of RA as well as OA.
In RA at paragraph 4 (i) has mentioned “there is a patent mistake in para 6.1 of the order in mentioning the figure 80,000/- in place of 8,000/-.” This assertion by the review applicant is patently wrong. In FR-49, in paragraph (iv) it has been mentioned that the figure of Rs.80,000/- is substituted by DoP&T OM dated 21.01.2010, which has been mentioned in the OA in paragraph-6.1. Hence, there is no error on the face of facts and the applicant is unnecessarily and mischievously alleging that there is a mistake in the figure of Rs.80,000/-. We do not find from where the applicant has got the figure of Rs.8,000/-. In paragraph 4 (ii) the review applicant has mentioned that the Tribunal has not considered the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi judgment dated 01.02.2008 in Union of India v. Y.R. Mahajan. The perusal of records in the OA shows that the applicant has not mentioned in his pleadings in the OA nor in his rejoinder the aforementioned case nor it was placed or taken recourse at the time of final hearing who appeared in person. In view of this, it is mischievous and misconceived on the part of the review applicant to mention that the said judgment was not taken into consideration. In paragraph 4 (iii) of the RA the applicant has stated that the prayer for calling for the records has not been decided. The Tribunal is not bound to call all the record unless relevancy of such record is pleaded or is shown for adjudication of a particular OA.
The applicant in paragraph 4 (iv) has mentioned that the written submissions filed during the course of hearing on 01.09.2023 have not been taken note of while disposing the OA. There was no direction to file any written submission by this Tribunal nor is there any written submission taken on record.
In paragraph 4 (v) the applicant has mentioned that the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Calcutta in Rajarshi Das Gupta’s case has not been considered. In paragraph 4.4 of the judgment, said judgment has been quoted by the applicant during the final hearing which has been detailed and it has been considered particularly in paragraph-6 where this Tribunal has mentioned that the Tribunal has heard both the parties and perused the records of the case.
The review applicant in paragraph 4 (vi) and 4 (vii) has mentioned about the written submissions filed on the last date of hearing. However, on perusal of the file there is no such order for written submissions nor any written submission is on record.
In para 6.4 of the OA, it has been clearly mentioned that FR 49 is clearly applicable and as the applicant has failed to prove that he was holding additional charge which has dis-similar pay scale and in a different cadre and in different office carrying different pay scales, no additional remuneration as prayed by the applicant, is permissible.
Rest of the grounds, as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the RA, amounts to re-argue the case. There is no apparent error on the face of facts and law in the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in OA No.3116/2022.
Again the same query was put to the applicant during the review proceedings the applicant’s submission has been recorded on 21.09.2026 which is reproduced below:
“In respect of paragraph 6.4 of the order dated 19.10.2023 in OA 3116/2022 the review applicant who appears in person was specifically asked what proof he has given in the OA that the additional charges he was holding was the similar in pay scales and belongs to a different cadre and different office carrying different pay scales so that he was entitled for any additional remuneration. To this, the applicant submits that it is the duty of the respondents to proof this not by the applicant because the respondents have given him additional charge and he has submitted copies of the orders vide which he has been given the additional charge. According to him, this is the requirement by law. The applicant refers again to Rule FR 49 and according to his interpretation, it is the duty and responsibility of the respondents to assign additional charge and also mention whether the additional posts or charge is significantly different in terms of pay scales etc., from the current post he was holding and whether the additional charge is not entitled for additional remuneration.”
7. Conclusion
In view of the above analysis, the RA lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.