Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Urmila vs General Manager N C Rly on 28 April, 2023
Review Application No. 18/2023 in O.A. No. 1280/2012
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Review Application No. 18/2023 in O.A. No. 1280/2012
This the 28th day of April, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Smt. Urmila aged about 42 years wife of late Shri Ram Babu
resident of Qr. No. K-5-A, Railway Colony, Datia (M.P.)
. . . Applicant
By Adv: Shri S.K. Pandey
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central
Railway, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway,
Jhansi.
..Respondents
ORDER (Under Circulation)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII, MEMBER(J) The present Review Application is preferred by the applicant of the aforesaid O.A. under Rule 17 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for reviewing the order dated 28.3.2023 passed in O.A. No. 1280/2012 by which the Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, passed the following orders:-
"8. It is admitted by the applicant that her husband was working as MRCL and has expired on 27.5.1996. It is also admitted fact that till the death he was not confirmed or regularized. After the death of the deceased employee, the department had rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment vide order dated 10.8.1998 on the ground that deceased Ram Babu was not a regular employee because he had been appointed as Casual Labour under PWI , Lalitpur on 3.12.1980 on the basis of alleged forged casual labour card. During the life time of the deceased, a charge sheet was also served on him on 26.8.1988, but the departmental proceeding could not be finalized against the deceased during his life time because the Ram Babu had expired on 27.5.1996. Applicant had filed O.A. No. 1208/1999 for quashing the order dated 10.8.1998 and for direction to give Compassionate appointment to the applicant in Group D post which was disposed off vide order dated 11.1.2001 and Tribunal directed the department to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the department had engaged the applicant as substitute vide letter dated 3.10.2001 in the department in place of her husband. In the Supplementary Counter Affidavit, learned counsel for applicant has stated that applicant has been given as Group D fresh face substitute employee vide letter dated 29.6.2001. It is admitted fact that Page 1 of 3 Review Application No. 18/2023 in O.A. No. 1280/2012 deceased was died as MRCL employee and Railway Rule does not provide that MRCL employee is entitled for pension. Learned counsel for applicant has failed to produce any rule which provides that MRCL employee is entitled for family pension. Hence, the Court is of the view that applicant is not entitled for family pension, because her husband was only MRCL till his death and O.A. is liable to be dismissed
9. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed.
10. There shall be no order as to costs."
2. Applicant has filed the review application on the ground that one Smt. Sharda, the widow of late Balkishan was allowed family pension, who rendered the services between 17.5.1987 to 5.10.1997 about 11 years whereas applicant has been discriminated because husband of the applicant had rendered service between 1980 to 27.5.1996 almost about 16 years. It is also submitted that husband of the applicant was initially engaged as Casual labour on 30.12.1980 and on completion of 6 months, he acquired temporary status as per provision contained in para 2005 of IREM. It is further submitted that the husband of the applicant was a permanent employee, being appointee of 1980 and he was medically examined and screened and only then he was allowed temporary status and was posted at different stations.
3. In the O.A., applicant had admitted that applicant is the wife of Shri Ram Babu, who was working as MRCL (Monthly rated Casual Labour) under permanent way Inspector(North), Lalitpur (Jhanshi Division). No where in the O.A., she had mentioned that husband of the applicant had acquired temporary status. Now, in the review petition, she is claiming that husband of the applicant had acquired temporary status, whereas in the counter reply, respondents have clearly submitted that applicant's husband was MRCL till death. He was not regularized as regular employee. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondents at the time of argument of O.A. that Shri Balakrishan was working as regular employee and confirmed Gangman, so her wife was eligible for family pension whereas husband of the applicant was working as MRCL and not confirmed till his retirement, so case of Balakrishan is different to the case of the applicant's husband.
4. By means of the present review application, the applicant has tried to re-open the entire issue afresh.
5. The scope of review is very limited. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, that review Page 2 of 3 Review Application No. 18/2023 in O.A. No. 1280/2012 proceedings cannot be considered by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and review petition is required to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also been pleased to observe that while deciding the review, the matter cannot be re-apprised and only typographical error apparent on record can be reviewed.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Chand Jain(Dead) Through Lrs, Vs. Motilal (Dead) Through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 has been pleased to observe as under:-
10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
7. The scope of review is very limited and it is not permissible for the Tribunal to act as an appellate authority in respect of original order passing a fresh order and re-hearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.
8. Considering the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the order dated 28.3.2023. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
(Justice Om Prakash-VII) Member (A) HLS/-
Page 3 of 3