Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Income Tax Contengent Employee S Union vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 31 May, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH AT JODHPUR
Review Application No. 290/00009/2016
In
Original Application No. 290/00325/2015
Date of decision: 31 .05.2016
CORAM:
HONBLE MS. PRAVEEN MAHAJAN, ADM. MEMBER
1. Income Tax Contengent Employees Union, Income Tax Office, Jodhpur (Association of Casual Labours of Income Tax, Jodhpur Region)
2. Anil Kumar Solanki s/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged about 30 years, r/o H.No.8, Baldev Nagar, Mataji Ka Than Road, Punjla Mandore, Jodhpur-342001. (A member of the Income Tax Contingent Employees Union).
Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. T.C.Gupta)
Vs.
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Paota, C-Road, Jodhpur-342006.
...Respondents
O R D E R (By Circulation)
The Review Application bearing No. 290/00009/2016 has been filed by the applicants in OA No.290/00325/2015, Income Tax Contingent Employees Union and Anr. Vs. UOI and Anr., which was disposed of vide order dated 12th May, 2016 with certain directions.
2. Perused the record. The review is sought on the ground that while disposing the OA interest has not been ordered to be paid to the review applicants, which is said to be patent error on the face of record.
3. The scope of review is very limited. In the case of Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and Others, AIR 2000 SC 85 the Apex Court reiterated that power of review vested in the Tribunal is similar to the one conferred upon a Civil Court and held:- The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. 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. It may be pointed out that the expression any other sufficient reason used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently in the rule. Any 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.
4. In the instant Review Application, the applicants have challenged the legality of the order on merit and while deciding this issue by way of review shall in effect touch the merit of the case, which does not come within the purview of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Rath (supra), the Review Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Consequently, there is no need to issue notices on the Review Application and the same is dismissed by circulation.
(PRAVEEN MAHAJAN) Administrative Member R/ 1