AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
The present Review Application No. 56/2023 is filed by the respondents department in the OA No. 1926/2010. The contention of the department is that there is error apparent on the fact of record that applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have already been retired and applicant No. 3 has already been died and as such applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 may not go to their parent cadre Northern Railway by exercising option as per direction given by this Tribunal in its order dated 13.10.2023. Because the lien of the applicants were transferred from Northern Railway to North Central Railway w.e.f. 01.11.2003 on their option and on the basis of approval they were transferred to North Central Railway in the year 2004 whereas the alleged junior to the applicants in Northern Railway were granted restructuring vide order dated 19.06.2006 (w.e.f. 01.11.2003) after joining the applicants in North Central Railway. It is further clarified that the applicants were not in Northern Railway at the time of passing the order dated 19.06.2006. This fact can be verified from the record, and the Railway Board letter dated 09.10.2003 clearly mentioned the cutoff date for restructuring and on the date of cutoff date applicants were not in the strength of the Northern Railway.
Notices were issued and the case came up for final hearing on 09.01.2024. Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants (respondents in OA) and Shri A.K. Dave, learned counsel for the respondents (applicants in the OA) were present and heard. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions.
From the record it is evident that there is limited error on the face of record; and it escaped the attention of the Court that the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had retired and applicant No. 3 had died. In view of the same limited modification of the original order dated 13.10.2023 will suffice and following clause may be added at the end of the order (within the operative part in para 17):-
“However, as the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have retired, and the applicant No. 3 has died; hence, as from the pleadings of the applicants it is evident that they considered that whatever benefits their juniors have got in their parent cadre in Northern Railway was beneficial to them, and so they should also get the benefit of the same. Hence, it may be considered by the department that two retired applicants and the one deceased applicant have given their individual consent for being continued as if notionally they continued during their service in Northern Railway and accordingly, whatever benefits their juniors have got in their parent cadre at Northern Railway, the same benefits on proforma basis may be given to them and to that effect Railway Board Chairman/Secretary may facilitate decision making by their present General Manager of North Central Railway, where they were transferred w.e.f. 01.11.2003 and where they have retired and now getting their pension etc.; and accordingly they will get all the consequential benefits as mentioned in para 17 of the said order”.
All other contention raised by the applicants in the Rev. Appl. (respondents in the OA) and averments of the other parties are not relevant as the scope of review is very limited.
The scope of review is very limited. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, that review proceedings cannot be considered by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and review petition is required to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also been pleased to observe that while deciding the review, the matter cannot be re-apprised and only typographical error apparent on record can be reviewed.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Chand Jain(Dead) Through Lrs, Vs. Motilal (Dead) Through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 has been pleased to observe as under:-
“10.It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.”
Hence, all other contentions of the applicants (respondents in OA) are hereby rejected and the following order is passed to be added at the end of para 17 of the impugned order dated 13.10.2023:-
“However, as the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have retired, and the applicant No. 3 has died; hence, as from the pleadings of the applicants it is evident that they considered that whatever benefits their juniors have got in their parent cadre in Northern Railway was beneficial to them, and so they should also get the benefit of the same. Hence, it may be considered by the department that two retired applicants and the one deceased applicant have given their individual consent for being continued as if notionally they continued during their service in Northern Railway and accordingly, whatever benefits their juniors have got in their parent cadre at Northern Railway, the same benefits on proforma basis may be given to them and to that effect Railway Board Chairman/Secretary may facilitate decision making by their present General Manager of North Central Railway, where they were transferred w.e.f. 01.11.2003 and where they have retired and now getting their pension etc.; and accordingly they will get all the consequential benefits as mentioned in para 17 of the said order”.
In view of the above the present Review Application is accordingly disposed of.