Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Seemant Kumar Gupta vs Chief Managing Director on 28 June, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
JABALPUR
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.200/00021/2016
(in OA No.200/00185/2015)
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2016
MR.G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Seemant Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Balkishan Gupta,
DOB 04/07/1975, R/o Gupta Bhawan, Near Primary School,
Balaganj, Ward No.9, Hoshangabad-461001 (M.P.) - Applicant
V e r s u s
1. Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harishchandra Mathur Lane,
Janpad, New Delhi-110001
2. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
M.P.Telecom Circle, 4th Floor, BSNL Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road,
Bhopal (M.P.)-462012
3. The Telecom District Manger, Telecom District, Hoshangabad,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Itarsi (M.P.)-461111
4. The Accounts Officer (Cash), O/o TDM-Hoshangabad,
Gandhi Nagar, Itarsi (M.P.)-461111 -Respondents
ORDER (in circulation)
This Review Application has been filed by the applicant to review the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No.200/00185/2015.
2. From perusal of the order under review it is found that the aforesaid Original Application No.200/00185/2015 was disposed of vide order dated 29.04.2016 after hearing learned counsels of both side and after perusal of the pleadings and documents of the respective parties.
3. By filing this Review Application, the applicant has contended that the Tribunal has not decided the relief sought for by him in respect of relief clause 8(iii) to direct the respondents to sanction special disability leave to the applicant for the period from 17.2.2012 to 28.9.2012 with all consequential benefits arising thereto. In this regard, relevant paragraphs 7 to 9 of the order dated 29.4.2016 read thus:
(7). Thus, according to the above provisions, disability leave is granted when an employee is disabled by injury intentionally inflicted or caused in, or in consequence of the due performance of his official duties or in consequence of his official position. As against this, in the order dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure A-1), rejecting his disability leave application dated 18.2.2012, it is mentioned that the applicant was injured while running after hitting Shri K.B.Batho, Senior TOA. The applicant has not controverted this fact of scuffle with Shri K.B. Batho either in the Original Application or by filing any rejoinder. Thus, as per the provisions of the Special disability rules the applicants injury cannot be considered to be covered under these rules.
(8). It is also observed that the request of the applicant for grant of disability leave was rejected as early as on 13.04.2012 and he has filed the present Original Application on 01.03.2015 which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The applicants contention that the cause of action arose by rejection of his subsequent application vide order dated 05.07.2014 (Annexure A-2) can not be accepted as in this order it is simply mentioned that his case has earlier been rejected by the order dated 13.04.2012. Thus, even on the ground of limitation, the instant Original Application is not maintainable for the relief regarding grant of special disability leave sought for by the applicant.
(9). In regard to other grievance of the applicant pertaining to payment of medical reimbursement claims, it is seen that the applicant was asked vide communication dated 14.12.2012 (Annexure R-4) to submit certain documents. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant never submitted those documents. As against this, the learned counsel for the applicant informed that as per information with him these documents were submitted by the applicant and have been misplaced by the respondents. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to search for those documents and if they had received them and subsequently lost, then they must process his claim by reconstituting the file and pass the admissible claims as per law, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
4. From perusal of the above, it is abundant clear that the Tribunal has very well considered the relief 8(iii) sought for by the applicant and had observed that disability leave is granted when an employee is disabled by injury intentionally inflicted or caused in, or in consequence of the due performance of his official duties or in consequence of his official position. As against this, in the order dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure A-1), rejecting his disability leave application dated 18.2.2012, it is mentioned that the applicant was injured while running after hitting Shri K.B.Batho, Senior TOA. The applicant has not controverted this fact of scuffle with Shri K.B. Batho either in the Original Application or by filing any rejoinder. Thus, as per the provisions of the Special disability rules the applicants injury cannot be considered to be covered under these rules. Further, in para 8 the Tribunal had observed that the request of the applicant for grant of disability leave was rejected as early as on 13.04.2012 and he has filed the present Original Application on 01.03.2015 which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act. Thus, the contention of the applicant in this Review Application that the Tribunal has not considered the relief 8(iii) is not sustainable.
5. Thus, in the garb of the present Review Application the applicant is praying for recalling and setting aside the order passed in this Original Application by raising new grounds, which were not agitated at the time of final hearing, which is not permissible.
6. It may be noted that scope of review under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1, CPC, which provision is analogous to Section 22 (3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as held by the Honble Supreme Court is very limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995 (1) SCC 170 Meera Bhanja (Smt.) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.) referring to certain earlier judgments, observed that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error can not be cured in a review proceeding.
7. The power of review available to this Tribunal is the same as has been given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The apex court has clearly stated in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 that: a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. This Tribunal can not review its order unless the error is plain and apparent. It has clearly been further held by the apex court in the said case that: [A]ny other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.
8. It is also settled principle of law that the Tribunal cannot act as an appellate court for reviewing the original order. This proposition of law is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 wherein their lordships have held as under:
The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the original order by a fresh order and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with the review petition as if it was hearing an original application.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008)2 SCC (L&S) 735 scanned various earlier judgments and summarized the principle laid down therein, which reads thus:
35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its 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 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(iii) The expression any other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(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 larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) 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.
(viii) 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.
10. I, therefore, of the considered view that the law noticed hereinabove is squarely applicable in the present case and since no error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out or established, the present Review Application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the Review Application is dismissed at the circulation stage itself.
(G.P.Singhal) Administrative Member rkv 5 Sub: review RA 200/00021/2016 (in OA 200/00185/2015)
Page 5 of 5