Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
M/O Communications vs Mam Chand on 15 April, 2024
1
Item No.33 (C-3) R.A. No. 75/2023
In OA No.112/2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
MA No.1861/2023
in
RA No.75/2023
in
O.A. No.112/2017
This the 15th day of April, 2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)_
Union of India & Others: through
1. The Secretary,
Department of Post,
Ministry of Communication, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (Haryana).
...Review Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. A. K. Singh )
Versus
1. Shri. Mam Chand, aged 59 years,
S/o Sh. Sewa Ram,
Working as Postal Assistant
Head Office, Gurgaon (Haryana),
R/o House No.1682, Street No.7,
Laxman Vihar-II, Gurgaon.
...Review Respondent
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
2
Item No.33 (C-3) R.A. No. 75/2023
In OA No.112/2017
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J) :-
M.A. No.1861/2023 in R.A. No.75/2023 in O.A. No.112/2017 The instant MA has been filed by the original respondents seeking condonation of delay in filing the captioned RA.
2. For the reasons stated in the MA, the same is allowed.
R.A. No.75/2023 in O.A. No.112/2017
3. The Review Application seeks review of the order dated 11.11.2022 disposing OA No.112/2017, primarily on the ground that a Judgment dated 23.01.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.4829/2015 titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Nand Kishore and Anr., has not been discussed while deciding the OA. Learned counsel for the review applicants states that a copy of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana was placed before the Bench at the relevant time by way of an MA.
3
Item No.33 (C-3) R.A. No. 75/2023 In OA No.112/2017
4. We have carefully considered the contentions in the Review Application and examined the order dated 11.11.2022 against which the review has been sought, particularly para 4 which reads as under:-
"4. The contentions of the applicant are that similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Jodhpur Bench in OA 382/2011, which was decided on 22.05.2012 holding that the promotion earned by a Group D/Postman to the post of Postman/Postal Assistant cannot be treated as a promotion in the hierarchy and as such, cannot deny the financial upgradation on that count. Following the same, Hon'ble Madras Bench of this Tribunal decided OA No. 1088/2011, on 14.03.2013 and the said order was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in WP No. 30629/2014 filed by the Department and the matter was further carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 4848/2016, which was also dismissed vide order dt. 16.08.2016. Review Petition No.1939/2017 in SLP No. 4848/2016 filed by the Union of India was also dismissed on 13.09.2017. The applicant further contend that when the Government accepts the recommendations of the expert body such as Pay Commission, the substitution of the terms and conditions by executive power is arbitrary as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Diary No.3744/2016, vide order dt. 08.12.2017. That, the action of the respondents in not granting financial upgradation to the next Grade Pay under MACP ignoring the promotion of the post of Postal Assistant pursuant to the LDCE, which does not fall under the hierarchy as contemplated under ACP/MACP Scheme is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has handed over a copy of various relied upon decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal which are reproduced below :-
"1. OA No. 800/2018 - Y. Venkateshwarlu & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 12.10.2020.
2. OA No. 1023/2014 - Siba Prasad Das Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 07.11.2019.4
Item No.33 (C-3) R.A. No. 75/2023 In OA No.112/2017
3. OA No. 93/2019 & batch - Natvarbhai S. Makwana Vs. UOI & Ors. decided on 17.09.2019"
5. We clearly find mention that this OA has been decided on the analogy of the decision taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject in the instant OA and the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has recorded it in para 4 reproduced hereinabove.
6. There is no finding of fact or law in the Order under review that should define an error in the order, which could be the trigger for filing the present Review Application. The learned counsel for the review applicants is trying to re-argue the matter and is bringing out the facts which have already been duly considered.
7. The scope of review is limited to situations where a new evidence has been discovered, which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant earlier either on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. These principles have been reiterated in:-
(i) Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2004) SCC (L&S) 160 5 Item No.33 (C-3) R.A. No. 75/2023 In OA No.112/2017
(ii) Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 596
(iii) State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr 2008 (9) SCALE 509
(iv) Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Ors. 2007 9 SCC 369
8. On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that "the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub- section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision."
At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-
"(i) The power of Tribunal to review it order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1) of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason"
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds 6 Item No.33 (C-3) R.A. No. 75/2023 In OA No.112/2017
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court
(vii) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(ix) Mere discovery of new or important matter 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 Court/Tribunal earlier."
9. From the above, it is amply clear that existence of error apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for entertainment of the Review Application.
10. We have perused the order under review as also the grounds of review. We are convinced that as there is no finding of fact or law, there cannot be an error 7 Item No.33 (C-3) R.A. No. 75/2023 In OA No.112/2017 with respect to the same warranting interference in the order through the exercise of review jurisdiction.
11. The review application is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/yaksh/