Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Roshan Lal vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation Of ... on 27 July, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
RA No.142/2016
in
OA No.1448/2016
New Delhi this the 27th day of July, 2016.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Sullar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
1. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC),
Through the Commissioner (South),
Dr. SPM, Civic Centre, Minto Road,
New Delhi-110002.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Department of Environment Management Services
(HQ),
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
B.R. Ambedkar Stadium, Delhi Gate,
Delhi-110002.
-Review Applicants
-Versus-
Roshan Lal,
s/o Shri Mathura Lal,
Working as Chief Sanitary Inspector,
DEMS Department,
Central Zone,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-24.
-Respondent
ORDER (By Circulation)
Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A):
This Review Application (RA) has been filed by the respondents in OA under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking review of this 2 (RA No.142/2016 In OA No.1448/2016) Tribunal's order dated 06.05.2016 in OA No.1448/2016. The review applicants have sought review on the following grounds:
i) The Tribunal has failed to consider that ad hoc promotion to Shri Roshan Lal, applicant in the OA, to the post of CSI had been withdrawn for the reason that the said promotion was based on wrong facts and in the promotion order itself it was stipulated that the same can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason.
ii) The Tribunal failed to consider that there are 122 persons mentioned at seniority no.477 to 593 in the seniority list of ASIs in the unified MCD and that after trifurcation there are persons at seniority no.1 to 30 in the seniority list of ASIs in SDMC who are senior to the applicant in the OA and who have not yet been promoted to the post of CSI except Shri Kamaljeet Lamba and that the applicant in the OA (Shri Roshan Lal) could be considered for promotion only after these persons senior to him are promoted.
iii) The applicant in the OA (Shri Roshan Lal) got promotion to the post of SI w.e.f. 29.11.2000 vide order dated 31.12.2003. He got the said promotion wrongly as there were 122 persons senior to him who were not promoted.
Thus, ignoring the right of 122 seniors and granting 3 (RA No.142/2016 In OA No.1448/2016) promotion to the applicant (Shri Roshan Lal) in the unified MCD was not in order.
iv) The Tribunal has said that there are two vacant posts of CSI and both Shri Prem Kumar and Shri Roshan Lal (applicant in OA) can be adjusted against these posts. The Tribunal has failed to consider that there are 122 persons (erstwhile MCD employees) senior to Shri Roshan Lal who have not been promoted to the post of CSI, whereas Shri Roshan Lal has been wrongly promoted.
v) The Tribunal did not consider that there are Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgements wherein it has been held that wrong promotion given to a person can be withdrawn at any time.
2. For the aforementioned reasons, the review applicants have sought review of the Tribunal's order dated 06.05.2016 in OA No.1448/2016.
3. A mere reading of the RA goes to show that this RA is in the nature of an appeal. All the grounds contended in the RA have already been taken into account by the Tribunal while passing the order under review. The remedy for the review applicants lies in an appeal at the appropriate forum and not in seeking review of the order before this Tribunal. 4 (RA No.142/2016
In OA No.1448/2016)
4. On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that "the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision."
At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-
"(i) The power of Tribunal to review it 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) of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason"
appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (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 5 (RA No.142/2016 In OA No.1448/2016) a coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court
(vii) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii) 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.
(ix) 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."
5. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paras, RA is dismissed, in circulation. No costs.
(K.N. Shrivastava) (Justice M.S. Sullar) Member (A) Member (J) 'San.'