Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dgof Stenographers Welfare ... vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench RA No.220/2011 in OA No.2114/2010 New Delhi, this the 5th day of January, 2012 Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) 1. DGOF Stenographers Welfare Association, Through its Secretary, (Sh. Ramjiban Banerjee) 10A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata-700001. 2. Mr. Ratan Basak, S/o Late Amulya Ch. Basak, 44/15, Deewangazi Road, Bally, Howrah, West Bengal. Review Applicants ( By Advocate : Shri Bharat Bhushan) Versus 1. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Union of India represented Through The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production, New Delhi. 3. DGOF & Chairman, Ordinance Factory Board, Ayudh Bhawan, 10-A, Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road, Kolkata-70001. Review Respondents. (By Advocate : Shri V.S.R. Krishna) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Heard Shri Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the review applicants and Shri V.S.R. Krishna, learned counsel for the review respondents.
2. Shri Bharat Bhushan would submit that an error apparent has crept in the order passed in the OA decided on 16.05.2011 in the sense that the historical parity that existed in favour of the applicants right up to 5th CPC continued even in 5th CPC as per its recommendation. It is the respondents who introduced the disparity against the applicants w.e.f. 03.10.2003. The pay scale upgradation to `8000-13000/- was granted to PA and PS of the AFGQSS and equivalent Cadres after completion of 4 years in pay scale of `7500-12000/-. Therefore, the applicants feeling aggrieved have approached the respondents who informed that the matter would be referred to the 6th CPC. In that context, Shri Bharat Bhushan submits that historical parity even continued during the 5th CPC except that the new pay scales were introduced for others depriving the applicants. Further, he submits that as per para 7.10 of the 6th CPC recommendations, the applicants are all in the Head Quarters Secretariat Organisations and would, therefore, be entitled to the benefits recommended by the 6th CPC in para 3.1.9, not in para 3.1.14. Thus, he urges the RA to be allowed and the order passed in this OA should be recalled and adjudicated afresh.
3. Opposing the above contentions of the Review Applicants, Shri V.S.R. Krishna, learned counsel representing the review respondents would contend that the Review Applicants should not be allowed to bring in the new arguments in the sense that there was no pleading nor argument on para 7.10 of the 6th CPC recommendations in the main OA and even the said point had not been brought in the Review Application. Therefore, the fresh arguments being brought in the final hearing in the RA is legally not admissible. Shri Krishna would submit that who should be in the Secretariat Organisation and not in the Secretariat Organisation are policy matters which only the Government/Executive would be competent to decide. Moreso, when the 6th CPC has given a distinctive nomenclature for the Secretariat and Non-Secretariat Organisations and the applicants coming in the Non-Secretariat Organisation, the 6th CPC recommendations para 3.1.14 would be applicable. His contention is that there are no errors apparent in the judgment passed by the Tribunal in the OA decided on 16.5.2011. The Review Application deserves to be dismissed.
4. Having heard the contentions of the parties, it is noted that Review Applicants contentions on para 7.10 of the 6th CPC were neither argued in the original OA nor pleaded in the Review Application. At present, the fresh argument is being brought in which is not legally admissible. Be that as it may, even if we consider the arguments of the learned counsel for review applicants, the para 7.10 would in no way support the contentions that the review applicants belong to Secretariat Organisation. We have analysed in para 18 of the order dated 16.05.2011 and concluded that the review applicants belong to non-Secretariat Organisation and para 3.1.14 of 6th CPC would be applicable to them. The applicants undoubtedly are within the purview of the 6th CPC recommendations in para 3.1.14 and that is what has been decided by us in the OA.
5. The applicants may not be happy and satisfied with the said judgment but the Tribunal is not the right fora to sit in appeal over its own judgment. It is trite law that scope of review is rather limited one, circumscribed by prescribed parameters such as error apparent on the face of record and discovery of new facts/material and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its own orders. The Honble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Dass [2004 SCC (L&S) 160], has held as under :-
13. The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application was in complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as sound reasons contained therein whereby the original application was rejected. The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the original order by a fresh order and hearing of he matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with the review petitioner as if it was hearing an original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court.
6. Further, the Honble Apex Court in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, [2008 (8) SCC 612) has led the ratio of review as follows :-
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 concerned Court/Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.
7. Having given our careful and thoughtful consideration on the contentions of the parties, more specifically grounds raised by the review applicants in the RA, we do not find a case of review of our order passed in the Original Application on 16.05.2011.
8. Resultantly, the RA being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
( Dr. Dharam Paul Sharna ) ( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda)
Member (J) Member (A)
/rk/