Tripura High Court
Sri Tarun Kishore Noatia vs The State Of Tripura on 21 May, 2019
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Pet. No.35 of 2019
Sri Tarun Kishore Noatia,
son of Adhin Dayal Noatia,
resident of village & P.O. Garjee,
P.S. R. K. Pur, District: Gomati Tripura
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by its Principal Secretary
for the department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Tripura,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District: West Tripura
2. The Director,
Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Tripura,
P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District: West Tripura
---- Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Bhaumik, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Chowdhury, G.A.
Whether fit for
Reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Judgment & Order (Oral)
21.05.2019
Heard Mr. A. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner as well as Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.
02. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel has submitted that unless the appointment is given with effect from 16.05.2005, the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced inasmuch as, even Page 2 of 5 the benefit under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) or under similar other schemes would unnecessarily be delayed. Since the respondents have refused to count completion of required service with effect from 16.05.2005, the petitioner being aggrieved, has approached this court for reviewing that part of the order dated 30.01.2019 delivered in a series of writ petitions including W.P.(C) No.809 of 2018, titled as Tarun Kishore Noatia vs. State of Tripura and Anr. For purpose of reference the operative part of the said order is extracted below:
"Today, Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. has submitted that he has the instruction that the past service of the petitioners would be added as the qualifying service for purpose of pension and seniority. However, Mr. Choudhury, learned G.A. has submitted that the prayer for preponing the date of appointment to 16.05.2005 on which day the petitioners had joined in terms of the engagement order dated 07.05.2005 cannot be acceptable as those appointments were not made through any selection process or following the recruitment rules and hence, no financial benefit for the said period can be given to the petitioners. Furthermore, the petitioners knew the consequence of such engagement. They had also participated in the subsequent selection Page 13 of 13 process in terms of the employment notification dated 16.08.2006 as enclosed with these writ petitions and on their selection, they were regularly appointed and they were appointed from the date as reflected in the order dated 08.08.2012 [Annexure-12 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.806 of 2018] under column No.4. Therefore, the period from 16.05.2005 to 31.07.2007 was not counted with the regular service of the petitioners. Since the respondents have favourably considered that the petitioners will be added the said period of service w.e.f. 16.05.2005 to 31.07.2007 and with as the qualifying service for purpose of pension and seniority, this court is of the view that these writ petitions can be disposed of with the following directions viz:
(i) the petitioners' date of appointment for purpose of seniority and the qualifying service for pension etc. shall be 16.05.2005 and
(ii) the period from 16.05.2005 to 31.07.2007 shall be added as the qualifying service but for preponing the date of appointment, in the context of this case the petitioners will not get any financial benefit, even the release of their regular pay scale w.e.f. 31.07.2012 shall remain unaffected."
03. Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel has submitted that if the seniority is acceded to, why the release of benefits accruing Page 3 of 5 from the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) or its subsequent versions cannot be release on the basis of that date. The concession as was given, was qualified and on the basis of such concession given by the respondents, the writ petition was disposed of.
04. At this stage Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. has submitted that this review petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of the apex court in Union of India & Ors. vs. B. Valluvan & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 210 where the apex court has observed that the court's jurisdiction to review its own judgment, as is well known, is limited. The High Court, indisputably, has a power of review, but it must be exercised within the framework of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court did not arrive at a finding that there surfaces an error in the face of the record. In fact, the High Court, despite noticing the argument advanced on behalf of Union of India that the 1st respondent had no legal right to be appointed, proceeded to opine that the panel prepared for filling up of future vacancies should be given effect to. The review in that manner by the High Court was not only contrary to the circular letter issued by Union of India, but also contrary to the general principles of law.
05. Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A. has submitted that there is no error in the face of the records and as such this review petition, should be shot down at the threshold. So far the 'error apparent' is concerned, the apex court in M/s. Page 4 of 5 Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372 had occasion to observe that there is a distinction, which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by error apparent. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. But it lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares on in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent in the face of the record would be made out.
06. Having regard to this ground, raised by Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, this court is of the view that there is no error apparent in the face of the records, even what Mr. Bhaumik, learned counsel has submitted that for any other sufficient reason, this court may, exercise its review power, this court is of the view 'any other sufficient reason' by itself does not give any unbridled power to the court to review its own judgment. Sufficient reason has to be read within the precincts of the basic grounds Page 5 of 5 as provided under Section 114 of the CPC and under order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
07. Having observed thus, this review petition stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE Moumita