Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
East Coast Railway vs Chaitan Mohanty on 5 March, 2026
1 R.A.No. 260/0007 of 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
R.A.No. 260/0007 of 2026
(Arising out of OA 260/00745/2022 disposed of on 17.12.2025)
ORDER DATED: 05.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Union of India & Ors.......Review Applicants
VERSUS
Chaitan Mohanty.......Review Respondent
For the applicant : Mr. R.S.Pattnaik, Counsel
For the respondents: .....
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS , MEMBER (Admn.):
In terms of the provisions, this RA has been placed on circulation for consideration.
2. The Original Application No. 745/2022, filed by Sri Chaitan Mohanty (respondent in this RA), was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.2025 with direction as under:
".9. Insofar as merit is concerned, the respondents/Ld. Counsel for the respondents have taken the stand that in terms of the rules [para 171 IREM Vol.I and para 171 (5)] appointment from the post of Jr. Account Assistant (JAA) in pay of Rs. 1200-2040/- to Accountant Assistant Rs. 1400- 2600/- is a promotion, which can be offset against financial upgradation under MACP. In the case of V.Venkatraman RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:07:15 +05'30' 2 R.A.No. 260/0007 of 2026 (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP No. 9422/2011 on 04.01.2012 simplisitter under Article 136 of Constitution of India without laying down any law and, thus, it does not mean that Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Lower Court because when the court merely dismisses Special Leave Petition without going into the merit of the matter, it does not qualify as a binding precedence and to fortify such stand they have taken the recourse of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Kunhayammed & Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr, (2000) 6 SCC 359, and V.M.Salgaokar & Bros (P) Ltd Vs CIT, (2000) 5 SCC 373. Hence, according to them, the decision in the case of V.Venkatraman (supra) has no application to the case in hand, especially, when the said decision was rendered by the CAT, Madras Bench/Hon'ble High Court of Madras without taking into cognizance of the statutory provision that appointment from JAA to AA is a promotion and is offset against the financial upgradation.
Similar was the stand taken insofar as decisions rendered by this Bench in the cases of Sri Parameswar Biswal Sri Rabinarayan Satpathy (supra) and upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. According to the respondents, the applicant while working as Sr. TIA retired from service in the afternoon of 28.02.2023. He was allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1400- 2600/- w.e.f. 26.07.1991 not by virtue of holding the post of Clerk Grade-I (redesignated as JAA) but on promotion to higher functional post of Accounts Assistant as per RBE No. 158/1987 and RBE No. 222/1987 having fulfilled the conditions while he was continuing in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-.
11. In RBE Nos. 158/1987 and 222/1987, the Railway Board while introducing higher functional scale of Rs. 1400- 2600/- in accounts cadre to the extent of 80% of the post of Clerk Grade-I in pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- also laid down that staff in Grade 1200-2040/- will be eligible for promotion to higher grade, after minimum three years service in pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- having passed Appendix-IIA Examination. The eligible staff promoted will also have their pay fixed under Rule 2018-B [FR 22(C)]- R.I. Therefore, since change of scale of pay from 1200-2040/- to 1400-2600/- is a promotion, the same was rightly counted as offset of financial upgradation. Therefore, there being no infraction or infirmity in the decision, this OA is liable to be dismissed.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:07:15 +05'30' 3 R.A.No. 260/0007 of 2026
12. Ld. Counsel for the applicant taking us through the decided matters has submitted that the points raised by the respondents in the counter are obsolete and therefore, this matter is fully covered by the earlier orders more so when the respondents did nto dispute the fact that the scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- was upgraded to 1400-2600/- by way of restructuring.
13. We have considered the submissions and perused the records.
14. Although we find the stand of the respondents that this OA suffers from delay and laches, but, on the face of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 01.12.2022 in W.P.(C) 34591/2021 (Sailendra Kumar Sahoo Vs UOI & Ors.) holding that since the issue has already been adjudicated on merit by the Hon'ble High Court and has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no justifiable reason on the part of the CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack to reject the claim of the applicant on the ground delay and laches, the point of delay raised by the respondents is bound to fall to ground and accordingly the said point is overruled. Hence, MA No. 374/2024 stands allowed.
15. Insofar as merit of the matter is concerned, we may profitably note that if there is a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on the point having territorial jurisdiction over this Tribunal, it would be binding, as has been held by the Full Bench of CAT (Principal Bench) in OA No.555/2001 in (Dr. A.K.Dawar v/s. Union of India & Ors.) which has been reiterated by the Full Bench by the Full Bench of CAT (Cuttack Bench) in No. O.A. 260/00169/2014 dated 19.10.2023 [Raghunath Parida, -Vs-Union of India & Ors]. We find that the view taken by the Madras Bench and also by this Bench that revision of pay scale of 1200- 2040/- to 1400-2600/- due to restructuring is not a promotion was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and, thus, became a binding precedence and, therefore, the stand of the respondents that since the SLP was simply dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the decision of the Madras Bench and of this Bench cannot have any effect does not sound to judicial appeal so as to take a different view in this matter.
16. The net result of the discussions made above is that the respondents shall have to consider the case of the applicant for 3rd financial upgradation under MACP Scheme by not treating the restructuring of pay scale of Rs. RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:07:15 +05'30' 4 R.A.No. 260/0007 of 2026 1200-2040 to 1400-2600/- as promotion, of course, subject to fulfilling the other conditions by the applicant stipulated in the MACP Scheme. In such an event, the applicant shall be entitled to the arrear salary and the consequential effect on his pension and pensionary benefits paid to him. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. Departmental respondents in the OA/Review applicants herein, while reiterating the facts of the case, have filed review of the aforesaid order stating that this Bench while passing the order did not consider the judgment relied on by them in the case of All India Postal Accounts Employees Association & Ors Vs. UOI & Ors, SLP(C) No. 16246-16247 of 2018, which was dismissed thereby upholding the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. From the order, quoted above, there is no iota of doubt the said order has been passed taking into account the order of the Madras Bench and also of this Bench that revision of pay scale of 1200-2040/- to 1400-2600/- due to restructuring is not a promotion and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is binding on this Bench. Hence, the point raised by the review applicants that this Bench issued order without considering the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is misnomer.
4. Admittedly, under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment may be open to review, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:07:15 +05'30' 5 R.A.No. 260/0007 of 2026 record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".
5. In the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224, it has been observed and held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. A review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The above view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider what can be said to be "mistake or error apparent on the face of record". In para 22 to 35 it is observed and held as under:
"22. 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:07:15 +05'30' 6 R.A.No. 260/0007 of 2026 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."
6. In State of Haryana Vs. M.P. Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"27. A review petition filed by the appellants herein was not maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review."
7. In the case of Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.), (2006) 4 SCC 78, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and as under:
"14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 it was held that:
"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:07:15 +05'30' 7 R.A.No. 260/0007 of 2026 ''It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
8. In view of the facts and law discussed above, we find no ground not to speak of any justifiable ground to exercise the power of review as sought by the applicants. Hence, this RA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9. Copy of this order be given to both sides and uploaded in the official website.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS RAVI KUMAR 2026.03.05 17:07:15 +05'30'