AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surendra Mohan, J.—This review petition is filed seeking review of our judgment dated 19.10.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 32074/2009. The writ petition was filed challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dismissing T.A. No. 28/2008 filed by the Petitioner.
The Petitioner had joined the Telecom Department as an Assistant. He was granted two promotions, one after the completion of sixteen years of service and the other after completion of 26 years. He retired from service on 31.5.2002. According to the Petitioner, he was entitled to Grade-IV promotion. Such promotion was given to 10% of the employees who had got the BCR Grade, based on seniority. His claim was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal on finding that he would not have been considered for promotion even if his claim for seniority had been accepted. The Tribunal also found that he had not raised any objection against the seniority list even after several years of his retirement.
Therefore, the Tribunal felt that there was no scope for considering the correctness of the seniority list.
In the writ petition, the Petitioner''s counsel pointed out that after the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Petitioner had obtained additional details from the department under the Right to Information Act, according to which, there were 61 BCR Grades in existence which would have justified the appointment of six Grade IV persons. If such promotions had been given, the Petitioner would also have received the said benefit. Therefore, the Petitioner sought for setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
However, the contentions of the Petitioner were controverted by the Respondents who filed a counter affidavit in answer to the allegations. After considering the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, we dismissed the writ petition, declining to consider the correctness of the fresh controversy that was raised on the basis of new facts brought on record after the Central Administrative Tribunal had finally decided the matter. The said judgment is under challenge in this review petition.
The Petitioner has appeared in person before us. The very same contentions that were raised by his counsel on his behalf are raised by him before us in this review petition also. We have heard the Petitioner at length. We have also heard the counsel for the Respondent and given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced.
The review Petitioner has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of our judgment to justify a review thereof. All along, his case has been that on the basis of the new facts discovered by him after the Central Administrative Tribunal had passed its order, the said order was liable to be set aside. That contention was rejected by us for the reason that the Central Administrative Tribunal could not be found fault with for not having considered matters that were not brought to its notice. It was for the Petitioner to have brought the new facts to the notice of the Central Administrative Tribunal and sought for a review of the said order. We had, in our judgment, declined to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the grounds pleaded by the Petitioner. We do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter. If the Petitioner has any further grievance, it is up to him to seek a review of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and to place the new materials that he has discovered, before the said Tribunal. We do not find any grounds to review the judgment dated 19.10.2010 as sought for by the Petitioner.
This review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.