AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—The above application for review has been filed by the applicants who are the original respondents to the Writ Petition No. 723 of 2008 which came to be disposed of by Judgment dated 22-6-2009. By the said Judgment, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the respondent whereby this Court held that the show cause notice dated 12-9-2006 as also the impugned Order dated 3/13-9-2007 were unsustainable and contradictory to the Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and as such the same were accordingly quashed and set aside. This Court further held that Order fixing the pension of the original petitioner provisionally and proposing certain deductions also stands quashed and set aside. The Order dated 12-5-2008 passed by the Director of Education also was set aside. The Writ Petition was accordingly allowed.
The challenge of the respondent in the said petition was to the recovery order by the applicants to the excess payment claimed to have been made to the respondent while implementing the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal as contained in the Judgment dated 11-7-1990 delivered in T.R. 95/1987 & T.R. 98/1987. By the said Judgment, the Central Administrative Tribunal found that the petitioner though appointed against an additional post of Laboratory Assistant could not have been given pay scale of Rs. 260-430 as the relevant pay scale for the said post was Rs. 290-500. The Central Administrative Tribunal further directed release of the emoluments as per its Order from 16-5-1985 by declining the arrears. It was further the case of the respondents that the entitlement of the petitioner had been worked out accordingly and his pay scale has been initially fixed in the said pay scale of Rs. 290-500 on 18-12-1975 by releasing notional increment and that every year the notional increment has been released in his favour and then his pay has been worked out and thereafter he has been paid the arrears for the period as directed by the Orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The grievance of the respondent in the said petition was that the show cause notice dated 12-9-2006 came to be served on him mentioning that the amounts are paid to him in excess. The respondent after receipt of the said show cause notice had made a number of representations but the representations have not been considered and ultimately by Order dated 10-10-2008 fixed his pension upon superannuation at the age of 60 provisionally at Rs. 1,913/-only. Disputing the right of the applicants to claim the said excess amount, the respondent filed the said petition and after hearing the parties, the said Judgment dated 22-6-2009 came to be passed.
Shri Vivek Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the applicants has submitted that this Court should review the said Judgment as according to him, the respondent had failed to disclose about the filing of a review petition by the respondent seeking relief of arrears of pay scale from the date of his joining that is 1975 which came to be rejected by Order dated 20-8-1990. He further pointed out that non production of the Order passed in the said review petition has resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record which requires that the Judgment passed by this Court be reviewed. He further submitted that in case the Order passed in the said review petition was considered, this Court would have come to a contrary conclusion to the effect that the applicants were entitled to recover the excess amount paid to the respondent.
the other hand, Shri M. S. Sonak, learned Counsel for the respondent has disputed the said contention. He pointed out that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which necessitates for review of the said Judgment. He further submitted that the review filed by the respondent admittedly came to be dismissed and as such it would have no bearing on the interpretation of the original Order by the Central Administrative Tribunal fixing the pay scale from the year 1985 of Rs. 290-500. The learned Counsel further submitted that by filing the present review application, the applicants are trying to re-open the dispute with regard to the alleged excess amount sought to be recovered from the respondent which has been conclusively decided by this Court by the said Judgment. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no justification shown by the applicants as to why the applicants did not produce the said Order passed in the review application earlier before the disposal of the Writ Petition. He accordingly submitted that the review application deserves to be rejected.
perusal of the records and the Judgment passed by this Court dated 22-6-2009, we find that this Court has considered the aspect that the arrears of the pay were refused by the Central Administrative Tribunal and that the respondent was entitled for the emoluments as per the said Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal from 16-9-1985. The submissions of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the applicants have been duly incorporated at para 5 of the said Judgment. After considering all these submissions this Court has passed the said Judgment dated 22-6-2009. There is no dispute that the Order sought to be relied upon by the applicants is dated 20-8-1990. By the said Order, the review application filed by the respondents came to be rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said Order as such would not be relevant for the disposal of the said Writ Petition. In fact in the show cause notice dated 12-9-2006 impugned in the said Writ Petition, there is a reference to the fact that the respondent had filed a review before the Central Administrative Tribunal which came to be dismissed. Apart from that, the applicants have not shown how the production of the said Order would falter the Judgment under review. The applicants have also not shown that the said Order was not within their knowledge and even after exercise of diligence the same could not have been produced before this Court earlier.
The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in The State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, in paras 21 and 22 has held thus:
At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional 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 earlier.
The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.
Considering the said Judgment of the Apex Court, we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record nor any other ground which necessitates the review of the Judgment passed by this Court. The applicants by filing the present review application are trying to assail the findings of this Court in the said Judgment which is not permissible under a garb of a review application. The above application appears to be an appeal in disguise. There is no merit in the above application. Hence, the application stands rejected.