Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Virendra Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 8 February, 2013
(Open Court)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
ALLAHABAD this the 08th day of February , 2013.
HONBLE MR. SHASHI PRAKASH, MEMBER (A).
Review Application No. 02 OF 2012
In
Original Application No. 1217 of 2010.
Virendra Kumar Pandey, S/o Late Lal Babu Pandey, R/o Village Madhaur, Post Bhatpar Rani, District - Deoria.
..applicant
V E R S U S
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Varanasi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Varanasi.
Respondents
Advocate for the Review applicant : Shri Ashish Srivastava
Advocate for the Review Respondents : Shri Anil Kumar
O R D E R
The present Review Application under section 22 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, has been filed seeking review of the order dated 25.11.2011 by which O.A No. 1217/10 has been dismissed being time barred. The ground taken by the applicant is that the order has been passed without taking into account the facts of the case and the earlier order on the same subject matter in O.A No. 360/08 by which the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the absorption of the applicant in the department. The applicant has also reiterated certain facts and arguments in his application that were taken in the original application. The order under review was passed after taking into account several judgments of the Apex Court wherein it has been held that the Tribunal should not give fresh lease of limitation by directing the respondents to decide old representation. Detail observation of the Apex Court in this regard has been extensively quoted in the order. It is therefore, evident that it is after careful consideration of the facts of the case and the date of the cause of action the Tribunal arrived at a conscious decision that the O.A is barred by limitation.
3. It is well settled that scope of review is very limited and can be resorted only in cases where a glaring or patent mistake or a grave error has crept in the order. It is by no means an appeal in disguise. In the case of Revenue Divisional Officer & Ors Vs. A. Aruna & Ors JT 1998(5) SC 438 the Apex Court has held that the phrase judgment or order passed on a mistake of fact must show that the mistake of fact is patent that it directly results in an erroneous order sought to be reviewed. Therefore, review does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position.
4. In view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court regarding maintainability of the Review it is clear that power of review is extremely limited and confine to glaring error apparent on the face of record. In the instant case, the O.A has been dismissed on the ground of being time barred which prima facie apparent from the record of the case , therefore, there does not appear to be any error on the face of record in the order. Moreover, the protection given to the applicant by order dated 01.04.2010 in O.A No. 360/2008 has also been embedded in the order under review. Hence I find that the Review Application lacks on merits, therefore, dismissed.
Member-A Anand...
??
??
??
??
2 Rev. Appl. No. 02/2012