Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar vs Union Of India on 18 September, 2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
RA-234/2012 in
OA-1248/2010
Reserved on : 15.09.2017.
Pronounced on :18.09.2017.
Hon'ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)
1. Shri Anil Kumar,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Late Shri R.S. Yadav,
R/o B-142/2, RDSO Colony,
Manak Nagar,
Lucknow.
2. Shri Abhay Kumar Sinha,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Shri S.P. Sinha,
R/o B-144/2, RDSO Colony,
Manak Nagar,
Lucknow.
3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Shri R.S. Tiwari,
R/o A-23/1, RDSO Colony,
Manak Nagar,
Lucknow.
4. Shri Arsad Hussain,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Shri Israr Hussain,
R/o D-119, Rajajipuram,
Lucknow.
5. Shri Sanjay Gupta,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Shri S.P. Gupta,
R/o H-19/55, Sec-7,
Rohini, Delhi.
2 RA-234/2012 in OA-1248/2010
6. Shri Sanjiv Kumar,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Dr. A.C. Sinha,
R/o L-8, Prince Anwar Shah Road,
Mecon Tower,
Kolkata-68.
7. Shri Mahendra Singh,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Shri Ashu Singh,
R/o Rajajipuram,
Lucknow.
8. Shri Sanjay Kumar Sah,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Late Shri B.D. Sah,
R/o B-51/4, RDSO Colony,
Lucknow.
9. Shri Manish Kumar Srivastava,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Shri H.B. Srivastava,
R/o H.No.15-E, Sarojini Nagar,
Lucknow.
10. Shri M.K. Bharti,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Shri R.B. Prasad,
R/o H.No.554/37/GI,
Pawanpuri, Alambagh,
Lucknow.
11. Shri G.K. Goswami,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Shri Y. Goswami,
R/o B-122/2, RDSO Colony,
Lucknow.
12. Shri Birendra Singh,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Late Shri T.S. Chilwal,
R/o B-151/1, RDSO Colony,
Lucknow.
13. Shri Naval Kumar Singh,
Aged about 44 years,
3 RA-234/2012 in OA-1248/2010
S/o Shri Bachu Lal Das,
R/o B-117/3, RDSO Colony,
Lucknow.
14. Shri Brajesh Kumar Pandey,
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Shri S.R. Pandey,
R/o B-48/A, RDSO Colony,
Lucknow.
15. Shri Jnan Prakash Majumdar,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Shri J.N. Majumdar,
R/o 95/C, Shubash Nagar Road,
Kolkata.
16. Shri Gautam Biswas,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Shri Gobinda Ch. Biswas,
R/o Satigacha,
Ranaghat, Nadia,
West Bengal.
17. Shri Ramesh Chandra Sahoo,
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Late Shri Jaga Sahoo,
R/o C-124/3, RDSO Colony,
Lucknow. .... Review Applicant
(through Mrs. Meenu Mainee, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through
The Chairman,
Railway Board (Ex-Officio Principal Secretary),
Ministry of Railways,
Railway Board, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Railway Board,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
South Block,
4 RA-234/2012 in OA-1248/2010
Raisiana Marg,
New Delhi.
4. The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension,
South Block,
Raisiana Marg,
New Delhi.
5. The Director General,
RDSO, Ministry of Railways,
Manak Nagar,
Lucknow. ..... Respondents
(through Sh. R.N. Singh, Advocate)
ORDER
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) This review application is directed against our order dated 11.04.2012 by which OA-1248/2010 was dismissed. Mrs. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel appearing for the review applicants pressed the following issues before us in support of her review application:-
(i) Certain documents having a bearing on this case could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of decision of the O.A.
(ii) This Tribunal inadvertently did not consider the rejoinder filed by the applicants to the additional reply of the respondents. It contained important information that some of the applicants had appeared for the APO exam without prejudice to their rights in the present O.A. 5 RA-234/2012 in OA-1248/2010
2. This review application has been opposed by the respondents.
Arguing for the respondents Sh. R.N. Singh submitted that all the facts of the case and arguments of the applicants have been correctly noted by the Tribunal in the judgment in question. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Moreover, the O.A. had been dismissed on the grounds that the issue involved in the case was a policy matter, which did not warrant any interference from the Tribunal. Thus, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to discuss every document in the judgment and contention of the review applicants that their rejoinder to the additional reply has not been considered by the Tribunal looses significance.
3. We have heard both sides and have perused the material placed on record. Learned counsel for the review applicants had drawn our attention to Annexure RA-2, which is a communication dated 04.03.2005 issued by the Director General, RDSO to Railway Board and submitted that this document could not be placed before Tribunal at the time of decision in OA. We, however, notice that a copy of this letter has been marked to the applicants. The applicants, therefore, cannot claim that the same was not available to them at the time of decision in the O.A. Since they did not produce this letter at the relevant time, now producing the same 6 RA-234/2012 in OA-1248/2010 and seeking review of the judgment on that ground cannot be permitted.
4. Further, we find that this Tribunal has noted in para-8.1 of the judgment that the applicants have been approaching the Tribunal in piece meal first by raising the issue of pay scale and then subsequently about promotional prospects. The Tribunal had observed that the O.A. was barred by limitation. Further, in para 8.2 of the judgment the Tribunal had held that this O.A. was barred by principles of constructive res judicata. Thereafter, in para 8.3 of the judgment, the Tribunal has dealt with the limitation of the Tribunal while exercising powers of judicial review and observed that the issue involved was a policy matter lying within the domain of the executive. The Tribunal has also observed in the judgment that the respondents have sufficiently protected the interest of the applicants by retaining the pay scale granted to them prior to restructuring as also protecting their status as Group-B employees in personam.
5. In view of the above, we agree with the respondents that merely because there is no discussion in the judgment on the rejoinder filed by the applicants to the additional reply of the respondents, this case is not fit for review as even consideration of that rejoinder would not have made any difference to the outcome of this O.A. 7 RA-234/2012 in OA-1248/2010
6. Therefore, finding no merit in this review application, we dismiss the same. No costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Shekhar Agarwal) Member (J) Member (A) /vinita/