Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Dr Smt Brij Rani Pandey vs Secretary, H.R.D, Shastri Bhawan, New ... on 30 May, 2024
CAT,Lucknow Bench RA No. 332/00028/2024 in OA 261/2018 Dr Brij Rani Pandey vs UOI &Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Review Application No. 28/2024
In
Original Application No. 261/2018
Dated this 30th day of May, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Dr. Brij Rani Pandey, aged about 60 years, wife of Shri Sunil Pandey,
Resident of C-2077/3, Indiranagar, Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Dr. Anagh Mishra
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Human
Resources Development, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, through its Commissioner, Sahis
Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi.
3. Joint Commissioner (Adm & amp: Aca), Kendriya Vidyalaya
Sangathan, New Delhi.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Ahmedabad Region.
.....Respondents
ORDER (UNDER CIRCULATION)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this Review Application, the applicant has prayed for review of judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 261 of 2024 Dr. (Smt.) Brij Rani Pandey Vs. Union of India &Anr, thereby allowing the Original Application and/or pass Page 1 of 4 CAT,Lucknow Bench RA No. 332/00028/2024 in OA 261/2018 Dr Brij Rani Pandey vs UOI &Ors. appropriate orders in the interest of justice in the circumstances of the case.
2. In O.A. No. 261 of 2018, vide order dated 15.04.2024, this Tribunal had disposed of the O.A. holding that no relief can be granted to the applicant.
3.1 It is the contention of the applicant that she was always willing to work and join her duties, but the respondents did not allow her to work and failed to give her posting in terms of the orders passed by the National Commission for Women (NCW). It is further contended that this Tribunal wrongly observed that "the applicant did not join the new place of posting nor did she challenge her transfer" failing to consider orders dated 29.12.2000 and 01.03.2001 passed by NCW. 3.2 It is further contended that this Tribunal has failed to consider various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court which warrant entitlement to back wages when the enquiry is vitiated. Further, that this Tribunal has failed to consider that in cases of wrongful termination of service, re-instatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
3.3 The observations made by this Tribunal inter alia in paragraphs 6.4.3 and 6.4.4 of the order dated 15.04.2024 have also been opposed by the applicant.
4. We have gone through the Review Application and the records of the case.
5.1 The scope of review has been defined by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. with other connected matters [2023 INSC 963], in the following terms:
Page 2 of 4
CAT,Lucknow Bench RA No. 332/00028/2024 in OA 261/2018 Dr Brij Rani Pandey vs UOI &Ors.
"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-
agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-
ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
(emphasis supplied) From the perusal of the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Apex Court, it follows that an order can be reviewed inter alia on the ground of error on the face of record which does not require elaborate reasoning on the points where there may be conceivably two opinions. 5.2 A perusal of the grounds cited in the Review Application shows that various aspects of the case have been brought into contention by the applicant. These are substantively in the nature of arguable issues requiring detailed reasoning where more than one opinion is possible. We are of the opinion that in this case, error is not self- evident or apparent on the face of record and which requires elaborate reasoning on the points where there may be conceivably two opinions. Page 3 of 4 CAT,Lucknow Bench RA No. 332/00028/2024 in OA 261/2018 Dr Brij Rani Pandey vs UOI &Ors.
6. In view of the foregoing, no case is made out for review of the order dated 15.04.2024 passed in O.A. No. 261 of 2024. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Page 4 of 4