Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Prakash Chandra Bothra S/O Shri ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 24 February, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Review Application No.290/00004/2017
(OA No.290/00405/2015)
RESERVED ON : 09.02.2017
Jodhpur, this the_24th __ day of February, 2017
CORAM
Honble Ms. Praveen Mahajan, Administrative Member
Prakash Chandra Bothra s/o Shri Chintamandas, aged about 64 years r/o Dhani Bazar, Barmer- 344001.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Mr.T.C.Gupta
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Post, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices, Churu Division, Churu- 331001
........Respondents
By Advocate : Shri K.S.Yadav
ORDER
Heard learned counsels of both the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that he does not want to file a reply.
2. The present Review Application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 16.12.2016 passed in OA No.290/00405/2015.
3. Original Application No. 290/00405/2015 filed by the applicant was decided on 16th December, 2016 holding that looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant was not entitled to any interest on the delayed payment of his transfer TA claim and the parties agreed that there was no provision for interest in the TA Rules and as such O.A. was dismissed.
4. The applicant has pleaded in the petition that once there was delay in payment of interest, the applicant is entitled to interest on the same. It is pleaded that Bench has not given categorical finding on the submissions made by the respondents regarding non-cooperation of the applicant, procedural formalities etc. leading to delay in sanction of the claim. Certain other findings of the Bench are termed to be irrelevant and baseless and that certain decisions cited by him were not considered by the Bench.
5. On a specific request made by the applicant that for the sake of justice and transparency, it is also requested that the review application may be heard in open court, the matter was heard in open court. During the course of hearing, Shri T.C. Gupta, reiterated the issues already submitted in the R.A. The counsel could not produce any evidence of error apparent in the order dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Bench, which could support his petition for review.
6. The pleadings in the Review Application do not disclose that the applicant has been able to point out any error apparent on record of the case. The nature and character of pleas taken by him indicate that the R.A. has been prepared as if it is an appeal in a higher court. If the applicant is not satisfied by the view taken by this Tribunal, he has liberty to challenge it for judicial review in Honble High Court. He cannot be allowed to re-argue the case all over again in the review plea. The grounds for review of an order are very limited and this process cannot be adopted for re-arguing the case all over again or for a fresh hearing. The applicant had claimed grant of interest, which has been declined by the Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case which plea cannot be considered in a review petition by this Tribunal.
7. The Honble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 in paragraph 22 has laid down parameters upon which an order can be reviewed which is reproduced as under : -
22. The term mistake or error apparent by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact of law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.
8. The Honble Apex Court in Parsion Devi and Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi and Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715 in para 9 has held as under:-
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
9. In Jain Studios Ltd. vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501, the Honble Apex Court has as under:-
11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negative. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law 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. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overrules arguments is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition in my opinion is in the nature of second innings which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted.
10. The scope of review has also been considered by the Honble Apex Court in Review Petition (Crl.) No.453 of 2012 in Writ Petition (Crl.) 135 of 2008 in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Ors. vide judgment dated 8th August, 2013, where in paragraphs 13 and 15, the Honble Apex Court has held as under:-
13) In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This Court, in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 651, held as under:
10. In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that 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 appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would 14 amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise.
15) Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII 15 Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
11. Before parting, it may be mentioned that in para 4 of the R.A. the applicant has mentioned that the O.A. was finally heard on 6.12.2016 and on that date Bench/Member neither pronounced the order nor reserved it and as such treating the case as reserved on that date is an error apparent on record.
12. A perusal of the interlocutory orders would indicate that the fact of arguments having been heard and Orders reserved are specifically recorded. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the orders were reserved. Thus, without inspection of the judicial case file, it is not proper to make unnecessary allegations in a light hearted manner by the litigants. The plea taken by the applicant, to say the least, amounts to scandalising the Court. Apparently, the applicant has made false averments in pleadings and scandalising the courts amounts to contempt of court and action can be taken against the applicant. But considering the facts that he may not be aware of nitty gritty of judicial process and has made statement in pleadings contrary to record, may be let off by a warning to be careful in future. It may be noticed here that the Honble Apex Court has clearly held in the case of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, that .The materialism has over- shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.
13. So far the averments made in the RA regarding the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Dua vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 44, is concerned, where the court held that the claim of interest is justified on the basis of equity under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, irrespective of there being any specific rule or not. The Bench has already perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, but the facts of the case are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is however, relevant to add that the matter in the case of S.K.Dua was regarding retiral benefits, whereas in the present OA the matter relates to TA claim. In para 9 of the order dated 16th December, 2016, it was stated that I have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant and I find that these are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
14. After perusing the grounds made in the Review Application, I find that if these are discussed in the present Review Application the same would amount to re-appreciation of facts and touching the merit of the case, which is not permissible, while dealing with the case in Review Application.
15. In view of above, I find no error apparent on the face of record or any sufficient reason warranting review of the order dated 16th December, 2016.
16. Accordingly, this R.A. is dismissed.
(PRAVEEN MAHAJAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER R/ 7