Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
M D Shashtri vs Others on 24 July, 2017
I R.p.'5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015
CENTRAL N)MINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH , MUMRAI .
Review Petition No . 5/2017
in
Original Application No .2161/2015 Dated this the C/\ )tO day of JulSI, 2617 .
b Coram : Hon lble Shri Arvind J. Rohee , Member ( J) Hon 'ble Ms . B . Bhamathi , Member (A) .
]Ylanohar Doma ji Shastri,
Aged about 56 yrs .
Occ : Service,
R/o Pl,ot No . 320 , Gandhi Nagar,
Nagpur . . . Applicant .
( By Advocatd Shri N .D . Khamborkar ) .
Versus
1) State Nutrition Officer,
N . N . M . B . Unit ,
Plata Kachei ,
Bureau of Nutrition,
South Ambazari Road,
Nagpur - 440010 .
ctor',
ona 1 Institute of
tion, Jamai Usmania,
rat)ad - 560 007 ( AP) .
+ rector General,
Indian Council of Medical Research, V . Ramlinga Swami Bhawan, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110029 .
4. The Union of India, through D.G. I .C.M. R. , New Delhi - 110 029 . . . Respondents .
Order on Review Petition (By Circulation) Per ': ArIrind. J. Rohee , Member ( Judicial) .
By this Petition under Section 22 ( 3 ) ( f ) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 read with Rule 17 of
the CAT ( Procedure ) Rules , 1987 , the petitioner who was
V 2 R.p.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015
the applicant in - C) . A. No . 2161/2-015 seeks review of the cormnon order dated 07.02.2017 passed by this .Tribunal in group of O . A . Nos . 2158 /2015 , 2159 /2015 , 2 } 60/2015 and 2161/2015.
2. The Review Petitioner was engaged as Driver on 22 . 12 . 1988 by the respondents on contract basis for rendering services in National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau (NNMB ) at Nagpur . His services were terminated by the Impugned order dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure A-1 in O. A. ) . Hi, ,,,Vi,,, b,y,.d 31.07.2015 - w,,,+ tinued/terrninat ed . Hence he approached in the challenging the said order and ' also claiming regularization in service .
3. The O . A . was opposed by the respondents on the ground t:.at the appointment was purely tempOrary and on contraCtual basis co-terminable with t:hd Project and on completion of the pro j.ect , the services were rightly discontinued/terminated . After hearing both the partie g on merit , this Tribunal vi(ie impugned order dated 07 . 02 . 2017 held that the action on the part of the respondent in discontInuing the ' service is perfectly justified and that the applicant is also r,ol erILI t_ led to regularization of service by giving elaborate reasons for the said findings . Concluding paras 50 to 54 of the said order state as under : -
"50 . in the result , the ' applicants q 3 R.p.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 are not -entitled to the reliefs claimed . .However, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if the resp6nd6nt s are directed to take appropriate ' steps for implementation of th.e decision already taken by the Government on closu,re of NNNIB at all the 16 units, for creation of supernumerary post of Driver for applicant in O . A . 2161./2015 (Nlanohar Doma ji Shastri ) since he rendered services as Driver for more , than 10 years from 22.12.1998 - till 31 . 10.2015 and to consider him for appoint'ment in the said post as and when new ".projects are taken up or vacancies arise in ongoing sImIlar projects .
+ 51. . The respondents are further directed to take approprIate steps so far as applicants in o . A. No ' 2158/2015 , O . A . No . 2159/2015 and O . A . No . 2160/2015 who have rendered the 'service for a period of less than 10 years to consider their case for appointment on contractual basis on priority as and when new projects are taken up or vacancies, arise in ongoing simijar temporary projects , where they could be gailIfully deployed .
The above exercise shall be carried in a period of three months from the receipt of certified . copS' of thIs while doing so submission of fresh ion by the applicants shall not be Id and only their ' willingness be obtained by giving offer of appointment to them.
53 . With the above directions all the four OAs stand disposed off , with no order as to costs .
54 .- it is needless to say that sinc6 the OAs are disposed off wIth directions , the interim order granted in favour of applicants earIIer, stands automatically vacated ."
4. The aforesaid order is challenged in this R.P. in which the following reliefs are sought : -
( 4 R.p.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015
r
" 1) review the order dated 7 /2/2017
ahd further allow . the Original
Application - No . 2161/2015 with all
consequential benefits ;
2) during the pendency of the
Original Application, the applicant pay that the order dated 7 /2/2017 passed by this Hon 'ble Tribunal be continued duting the pendency of the Original Application .
3) grant any other reliefs which this Hon 'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances be granted . '' d\: iS .: .t -;. ' . The above reliefs sought in the present R.P. ( fi pgiB:;i}[Able t:I 1 Hr IC1 ]rIL t ][ie f o11 () wing gr Qq ndLs as mentionedLain 1(1AHHHHA) !4. iI:i,I:{Z, R.P. . -'Th, ,,m, ,,,a,,p,odu,,d h,,, for ,,,dy \C+ i r-;£erence :-
"A) ' That , the applicant has worked for more than 25 years uninterruptedly get regular pay scale , increments , pay as per commission and oth6r benefits and is a regular eInp'loyee and since. the project on which he is working is cloged . He was entitled for absorption in other project in regular basis .
B) That , identically - place matter decided by Bangalore and Jabalpur the employees got relief of regularisat ion and since the impugned order was not passed, the applicant was gettIng of regular pay scale therefore , there was no question of makIng representation for regularization . It is submitted that / the appIIcant discontinu6d abruptly and therefore , the appIIcant rIghtly claim the relief of regularisat ion and the applicant is entitled for the same . The coPY. of Order passed by Bangalore Bench of Central AdmInistrative Tribunal is filed as ANNEXURE NO . A-2 .
C) That , admittedly the impugned order is passed without giving any show cause notice and without giving any
-"=.\-„- ' *1 5 R.P.5/2017 in o.'A.2161/2015 g opportunIty to the .Applicant is against B I the principle of natural justice . The relief of absorption on permanent basis 'was reb ,, ict:ed to the employees - which- had completed . less than 10 years of service and the applicant who is the at verge. of retirement can not be thrown without granting relief of regularisatlion and- the claim of the - applicant needs to be considered in that point .
D) That, since the Respondents have not raised the poInt of superannuation and pe rmanency . But , they thems61ves have issued letters on 16 / 9 /2010 for graded scale under long term research scheme and permanency of staff under long term pro] ect . The copy of the said + letter. issued by the Regponcient s are filed as ANNEXURE NO . A-3 & A-4 . This will clearly demonstrate that the applicant is working on long term project_ and is getting graded scale and revision pay of pay scale , he is - also ehtitleci for Med i.cal re-embankment , Medical Leave , exgracie payment . That the applicant is also entitled for earned leave and all r consequential scales , the applicant lso paying contributory 'provicient_ regtt larly this clearly shows that st on which the applicant is rs a permanent post and his 1 for the per{nanency was under
iderat ion .
E) That , the departmental has already made it clear that the age of superannuation for the person who are working on technical post is 62 years and administrative side it is 60 years . This criteria of superannuation of the appligant: to the employees are dppolrrte-d prior to 2001.
F) That., the applicant who . is working for more than 10 years are deserves to be regular ized and are entitled for all pensionary benefit after retirement this law already confirmed by the Hon ' k)Ie Supreme Court of India and the appLicant be- ing identical place i ff I 6 1 R.P.5/2017 in O.A.21 6 1/2015 employees were entitled to get the first relief prayed by them in the Original I Application of quashing of order of termination and further : ._ !ief of regularizatlion .
G) That, the applicant ' s . cas9 is not identical to the cases of Mlamta Patll and this Hon 'ble Tribunal has considered the facts of Mamta ' PattI and passed the impugned order the order of appointment and subsequent order issued in favour of the applicant which his demonstrated that the applicant was working in a lo'ng term project in a regular basis and in view of the .law laid down in Umacievi and other matters decIded .by the Hon ' ble Apex Court . . The applicant is entitled for ( regularisatlion also . . This Hon ble Tribunal hold that the applicant were not 1 t appointed on regularly grated the post nor there were in regular employment /: I.--,I:;{r: F ~P ince the applicant was not entitled to /g+)' : iIi: ' ."q~et basic pay plus clearness allowance the i:?J i}:! \%Ilaid is defIled to the applicant. On the =;Ttii:::I);; e:Th::F:
ViI&i!iii!:::::Hi::d= which' are applicable to the government' employees and the applicant was not on consolidated pay but was on regular pay ThOugh , he was initially appointed on consolidated Day but was regularised bv order dated 10/8/1990 since the issue i„las ' not agitated by the Respondents-/ the applicant has not mentioned all these facts . . The copy of the said orde'r is filed as ANNEXURE NO , A-5 .
H ) That the order of discon'tinued the applicant arbitrary / without conducting enquiry which amounts to stigma and is nu11ity in the eyes of law and therefore, the applicant are approaching this Hon 1 ble ' Tribunal for review . rl
6. The' Registry has placed this Review . Petition along with the entire record of O.A for consideration q 7 R.p.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 of ' this Tribunal by Circulation . Wn have carefully gone through the R.P. and also impugned order dated 07.02.2017 of which review is sought and ' the entire record of O.A .
7. The question for consideration is whether order passed by this Tribunal in O-A . is liable to be reviewed .
FIND INGS
8. It is needless to say that the scope of review =L of the order pasSed by the same forum - is limited. The provlslons bf Order 22 ( 3 ) ( f ) of the AT Act , 1985 read with Rule 17 ( 1 ) of CAT (Procedure ) Rules, 1987 and Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been considered and interpreted in various judicial QLln cements in which scope , applicability and extent power of review is elaborately stated .
To mention in brief tn IWs.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd.
Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh fAIR 1964 SC 1372} , the Hon ' b:Le Supreme Court has held that ' A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustive ty or in any grate detail, but it would stdPce for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a st,tbstantidt point 'of lax? which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertQjyled about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of.the record would be made out. "
10 . Similarly , it has been held by the Hon Tble Ape', 7'1 8 R.P.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 cc,art tn Chandra Kantct and another Vs. Sheikh Habib IAIR 1975 SC ISOO] -
that '' A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring Olnission Qr patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial faUibility. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectual!)' covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obvious insu#icient.
11 . Further in Meerc! Bhanja Vs. Smt.Nirmc! ict Kumari Choudhttry
IAIR 1995 SC 4551 , the Hon 'ble Supreme Court h-as held as
/
(
under : - +
Error apparent on face ofrecord, means an error which strikeS one on mere /gIl+gb pig:gt\record and would not required an)' long drawn process of reasoning pn f '-r..' :::;ii{.:.( .'+!\ \!. . Fj{#!w}$;:;' th"' 'I"y ''y"'i~'bb b' tw' 'Pi"i,",.
'/J. ::+n b 'T.'({' v/ (';;b'g:ii'#:'' in the case of SuI>hash Vs . State of Maharashtra and anr . , .AIR 2002 SC 2537 it has been emphasIzed that_ court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertaIn the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits tha+ the Courts and Tribunal should not proc'ee,d to ree..,amine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be the scope of review The above view has also been reiterated by the Hon lble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kwnar' Vs . ' Rambhal [AIR - 2003 SC 2095] holding that the IImitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled .
13 . In the case oE M/s. Jain Studios Ltd. Vs. Shin SafeNite public ;i) q: - / ( y R.P.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 9 Co. Ltd. IAIR 2006 SC 2686} , it has been held by _the Hon 'ble Supreme . Court that the power of review ' cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordInate Court .
} 14 . The Hon ' bILe Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Etectrotltermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others, Review PetItion ( Civil ) No . 238 /2003 in Civil Appeal No . 8322 of 2001 decided on 10.08.2005 held as . follows : -
t "...... in a review petition it is not open to this Court to re-
appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if t hat is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The apprecia£ion oj- evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the Court records a $nding offact and- reaches a conclusion, that coIIClaston. cannot be assait-ed in a review *etHion unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has contended before us that there is any error a$pdreyt! of the record. To permit the review petitioner to :, a question of appreciation of evidence would converting a review petition into an appeal in n'e are also of the view that learned counsel appearing for the Board made no concession before this Court. A mere perusal of the judgment of this Court discloses that he tu-ged all submissions on behalf of the Board with great vehgn,ter,ce. There is an observation in the judgment which is as foLlows: -
:'Mr. Rohtagi, however to the suggestion from the Court $naI& agreed that the appeal can be disposed of on equitable consideration by this Court by reducing the period for which concessional tart# could be given to the appellant " .
This observation cannot be read in isolation because we $nd that thereafter this Court proceeded to elamine the 10 R.P.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 Ihdtutr ial Policy of the Government and came to its conclusions on the basis of its anaiysis of the potic}? and the evidence on record. WE do not $nd that the judglne}lt of this Court proceeds on any concession made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Electricity Board.
We, therefore, fInd that the review petition lacks merit and the same is accordingLy dismissed. "
15 . The Hon ble 1 High Court of Chhat.tisgarh at Bilaspur in the case oE Kamru and Another Vs. Govardhan and other'sl F. ..:. -.- i ew Petition No . 20 of 2014 decided on 16.04.2014 held ar under :-
( '' ll...........
1t is trite at this juncture to refer to certain decisions rendered by the Hon'bte Supreme Cotirt on the question of <l?;:;-q'a§rtaini lrg the review petition in the matters of Kerala State /ii;; ' :.,:_-'EleCtricity Board Vs. Hitech Etectrothermicsm & FIydropo\,ver { :: : ('f;, Ltd-: -3nd others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 65 ! , Government of '\f;'I }:fS$F.Nij& Others Vs. Ananci%t /isari and others reported in (2005) \!%\ , "Y;: I '.§-C;C 332, Ajit Kumar Roth V$. State of Orissa and others q§t=h;\'@aried iII AIR 200C) SC 85, Lily Thomas etc. Vs. ORion of India and others reported in AIR 2 C)oo SC !650 and X4eel-a Bhanjan X/s. Smt Nirma! Kumar Chowdhal-)? reported in AIR 1995 S(= 455, ' All these judgments referred to above deals with the scopd' of a review petition and the crux of all these ( judgments, as a matter of principle as laid- down by the Hon'b le Supreme Court is that in the garb of Q review petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to converting the review petition into an appeal unLess there is an error on the face of the record and on the part of the Court in the passing of the judgment against which the review is sought for. "
E :?FeE: 16. The Hon ' ble High Court of Judicature for ii ::tr T:
Raj astan Bench at Jaipur in the case ot Dr. (Mrs.) Keel-ti &latlttlr Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, civil WrIt RevIew Petition No . 92 /2014 in Civil Writ Petition No . 6334 /2012 held as under : -
11 R:P.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 "........ Review Petition can be entertained only on the. ground of there being mistake apparent on the face of the record and therefore1 review petition cannot be $ 1ed only for the purpose of re-arguing the era.he matter all -over again. Arguments raised in support of review petition question the legality of the judgment \which the petitioner can ahvays assai! in special appeal before the Division Bench.
17 . The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the case ot Premilclben B. Gophi! Vs. Union of India & Ors. , RA No . 8 of 2013 in OA No . 298 /2012 held as follows :-
:'7. The applicaR t and the respondents have divergent perception 4 about. treating the deceased Shri Bac1%d)hai as regular employee or not. When such rival contentions are raised by both sides, the matter cannot be agitated in a RA because this is not permissible, in terms of the detailed guidelines for RA as. laid down by Hon'b le Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Serlgupta & Another, 2008 (3) SLJ 209 (SC) = (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735.
Hon't)Ie Supreme Court at Para 35 of the aforesaid judgments had taid down the La\'v rela{ing to the powers of the Administrative Tribunal to reviewv its decision under Sdction -23(i) of Administrative TribunaLs Act, 1985 as follows: -
The po\\>er of the Tribuna} to review its order/decision Section 22(3)V of the Act is akin/analogous to the a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 'PC Tribunal can review its decision on either of the + enuwterated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression 'any other su,$cient reason' appearing in Order 47 Rule ! has to be interpreted in the light of other speci$ed gro-,Olds .
' An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long procesF of reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3) G).
(v) An erroneOus order/decision cannot. be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of re\)teM).
' A decision/order cann.ot be reviewed under Section 22(3)
(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgwteya of a <7 12 R.p.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 coordinate or larger Bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court .
(vii)While considering an application for review, the- Tribunal must cort$ne its adjudication with reference to material which It?as available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or devetopnrent cannot be taken note or for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
• Mere discovery of new or important m@Her or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due. diligence, the same could not be produced before the CQurt/Tribunal earlier.
8. in the Light of the la\v laid down by Hon'bte Apex Court as above, the present RA is not maintainable and hence the same is rejected. "
\ / > &t iIT, \ T:VA.
+l~ /';/}The Hon'ble Supre"' COLlrt in the case of II ,\: J'_'"'- ;
Gopcl1 <gq{?g@FF/:State Cadre Forest Of$cerst Association & Others fAIR 2007 SC 1878] X"-h==-n+oPa++ held that the Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over its own judgment . The Tribunal cannot travel out of its jurisdiction to write a s'econd order in the name of reviewing its own judgment . T.he relevant paragraph is set out: herein below :
"25. The Learned Counsel for the State also pointed out that there was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its o\vu judgment. Even after the microscopic t=amittaiion of the judgment of the Tribunal we could not fInd a single reason ill- the whole judgment as to hoy,? the re'oie'„v was just$ed and for what reasons. No apparent error on the face of the record was pointed, nor \\'as it discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate authority over its own j%dgwlent.
This was completely impermissible and we agree with the High Court (Justice Sirlha) that the Tribunal has nave tied out of its 13 . R.P.5/2017 in o,A.2161/2015 J jbttisdiction to write a second. order in the name of revieWing its own jac$gment. Infact the !earne(i counsel for the appellant did not address us on this very vitat aspqct."
1'9 . . In view of the relevant provisions relating to Review and various decisions rendered by Hon ' bIc Supreme Court , it is well settled that any decision/order, even if erroneous cqnnot be corrected in the gui. se of exercise . of power of 'r'eview . The p6wers of review can be exercised on accoUnt of some mistake or error A ap-parent on the face of the record . The Hon Tble Supreme Court , in the case Pt Ajit Kumar Ruth Vs. State of Orissa and others [2000 SCC (L&S) 192] categorically stated that '' A review 'cannot b.e claimed of asked merely for a fresh 'hearing .or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken that is to say, the power of review can be on':L y for -correction of a patent error of law which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being- needed for establishing it '' 20 . It is thus obvious . from the above dIscussion that the law laid down is quite clear and unambiguous .
The Review Petitions can be ehtertaineci only . when it is established that there is an error apparent. on the face of record . Thus , the R.P . cannot' be equated with the appeal memo. so that there is any scope - for reappreciat ion of the en.tire evidence and material / \:
- 14 R.P.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 brought on record while - deciding the O . A. on merit . I I
21. , Keeping in mind the above legal position and considering the grounds raised by the applicant in the present R.P. it is obvious that he infact intends to require this Tribunal to reappreclat e the entire evidence brought on record in the O. A. to come to a different conclusion . . The case of Ms.Mamt,a Shyamrac..) PattI the applicant in who happens to be applic.,ant in O . A . 2158 /2015 which was decided by the comrlu)n order 11F + dated 07.02.2017 is quite distinct and .by the impugned op.Q\rat 4:. A\ 1 ive 1?1' order directions were issued : to take t I ;'?-:''{::PPt I ;! ' ':'\'£j'J{ effiate s.teps £or +hplemer:tatton o£ the decision !! J. !i{{ife,+!itO taken by the Gover„,.ent on closure of N.N.M. B quIii:iIaita r as Pr esent aPPI i cant 1s con c er ned / f u r the r direction is also issued for creation bf supernumerary post of . Driver, since he rendered service in the said capacity for mori than 10 years from 22.12 : 1998 till 31T I O n 2 0 1 5 a n 1Ci t O C 0 n : i d e r h i 1T1 f 0 r a F) P ointment in thI said post as and when new Projects are und6rtaken against Ehe vacancies in ongoing similar Projects . The record shows that the Government itself has taken due care co protect the interest of the adhoc/temporary/contractual employees - engaged in different projects so that on completion of projects such persons can be accommodated in further ' projects However, in the present case since N.N .M.B. is already 15 R.P.5/2017 in O.A.2161/2015 closed the direction issued bV this Tribunal in the OA can safely be said to be intended ;o protect the legitimate interest' of the applicant . In such circumst_'ance-s of the case there is hardly any scope for r6view of the order passed by this Tribunal. In case the applicant has airy grievance the appropriate remedy will be to challenge the order passed by this Tribunal by way of Writ Petition .
22 . Bd:fore cOncluding it-' may be mentioned here that + this Tribunal while deciding the grot+p of OAs has elaborately consIdered the various . decisions relied upon by both the parties before coming to a conclusion that no relief can be granted to the applicant except issuance of directions . The landmark decision rendered gT&;: ktary , State of Karnataka Vs : Uma Devi and (2006) 4 SCC 1 was also . elaborately considered fith ' other cases . In this Review Petition the 6 applicant placed r61iance on the decisIon rendered by the C.A.T. Bandalore Bench in C) . A. No . 170/0850/2015 v . Somashekara. Vs . Union of India & ' Others decided on 30.01 . 2017 and submitted that the applicant being similarly placed is entitled to th6 same relief . The said case perta IIno to Indian - Council of Medical Research , which has undertaken the pro] ect by name "A$sbssment of Diet and Nutritional Status of Urban Population, Prevalence and Determinants of Hypertension a 16 R.P.5/2017 in o.A.2161/2015 a and Diabetes among adults in India" . The appIIcant b! i therein ' was working as Driver in N .N .M.B. Bangalore .
The issue . involved therein was regarding age of superannuation of staff working in the lifetime projects in I . C . M . R . Which was fixed as 60 years for general staff and 62 years for Scientific staff . In that case also the applicant has sought regularization in service . After considering the decision rendered by Calcut La Be f C . A. T . , ' the Hon lble ' High Court of Madhya at Jabalpur and Hon 'ble Madras High Court the + ief was granted to the applicant therein holding is similarly placed . However, it is obvious the : the decision rendered by !he Hon 'ble High Court of Ma „-: :-as in Writ Petition No . 2260/2011 and Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No . 9660/2014 respectively we ie also considered ' by this Tribunal. The decision rendered by the C.A.T., Bangalore Bench has not - been -
V produced by the applicant before the group .of OAs are dQcided by this TrIbunal. Hence the same cannot be considered at this stage in the limIted jurisdiction vested in this Tribunal wtI_ile exercising power of Review .
23 . From the above discussion it is obvious that we do not find anY substance in the present ' Review Petlt lon . Consequently the Review Petition stands dismissed by Circulation, without issuing notice to the • , {/ 17 R.P.5/20 17 in 0.A.2 1 61/2015 respondents .
e\!gg
The Registry ' is ditecte d
to forward copy of
r 1c] e r to !•HHHh) oth t he HPart i es a t t he ea rIte st for
L1 rt H]F1L 1e n][HpRn ]nL 1e Iess
1(bAH•••HHpI pry stepS in them dtt er
\
$ {t\' e.„ri
; :,f. r ',{ ' F. 'B ' It+/}
A h P
I +:+
:a: •!;}{•
:: ==; : ::e: :+:13:{1 !! ! ;a
te: p Bb
ihamathi )
Mendber (A) (Ar\rind }hee )
MeKe]-
Certified True Copy
4 nato,H,.,.................
Section Of,tiGer
Central Adtminis{rat{ye Tribunal, F,lumbai bench, Mumbai C