Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
R K Khola vs Space Applications Centre,Isro on 5 February, 2021
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/RA No.04/2020 in OA No.397/2018) 1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH, AHMEDABAD
R.A.No.4/2020
in
Original Application No.397 of 2018
Dated this the 05th day of February, 2021
CORAM :
HON'BLE SHRI JAYESH V. BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE DR. A. K. DUBEY, MEMBER (A)
Dr. R. K. Khola,
(Senior Citizen),
S/o. Murlither Yadav,
B-9, Avani Row houses,
Near Satellite Towers,
Ahmedabad - 380 015.
(M) 0991274518 ... Applicant
In person
v/s
1 Union of India (notice to be served through)
The Secretary, Department of Space, Govt. of India,
Antariksh Bhawan, New BEL Road,
Bangalore - 560 231.
2 The Secretary, Department of Space, Govt. of India,
Antariksh Bhawan, New BEL Road,
Bangalore - 560 231.
3 The Director,
Space Applications Centre,
Ambawadi Vistar, Ahmedabad - 380 015. ... Respondents
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/RA No.04/2020 in OA No.397/2018) 2
ORDER (BY CIRCULATION)
Per Dr A K Dubey, Member (A)
1. This review application is preferred by Dr.R.K.Khola in R.A No.4/2020 against the order passed by this Tribunal dated 14.09.2020 in the OA No.397/2018, seeking following reliefs:-
"This matter be reconsidered and the review application deserves to be allowed and the main reliefs claimed by the applicant be granted in the interest of justice at this stage and sympathetically also because of the fact that the applicant is very old person of about 80 years of age and has cirrhosis (Cancer) and etc. and is completely exhausted mentally, physically and economically."
2. In the order in OA No.397/2018 dated 14.09.2020, we had recorded the respondents contentions in its para as under:-
"2 Respondents have contended in their reply that the order dated 18.01.1994 was issued with prior approval of Government of India and therefore it is neither illegal nor ultra virus or infirm and therefore, the second relief to recount his service on this ground was inadmissible. Respondents have also stated that applicant had joined ISRO as Scientist/Engineer SC on 01.03.1971 for which the minimum qualification was only B.Sc./B.Tech as per the recruitment rules. Respondents have contended that mere possession of higher qualification at the time of recruitment does not make one eligible for certain benefit under Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules; Vide order dated 18.01.1994 this benefit under CCS (Pension) Rules is permissible to Scientists/Engineers who were recruited at the level of Scientist/Engineer SD and above. The Provisions of the Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 is applicable for the Scientific/technical employees of DOS/ISRO who were directly recruited at the level of Scientist/Engineer SD and above. Since the applicant was recruited at level of Scientist/Engineer - SC, he was not eligible for addition of qualifying service in terms of OM dated 18.01.1994."
2.1. Para 3 of the said order reads as under:-
"3 We have carefully gone through the records and examined the papers placed before us. We do not find any ambiguity either in the OM dated 18.01.1994 or in the provisions of Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Records and documents clearly show that the applicant was recruited as Scientist/Engineer SC, for which the essential qualification was prescribed in the recruitment rules for Scientific and Technical staff. Merely having higher degree per se does not confer upon him any entitlement to the benefits claimed. Similarly, we do not find the applicant's request for calling for other records of any help in this case; even otherwise, he may obtain information under RTI Act if permissible there. Hence this part of his prayer abates. After carefully going through all the records and hearing the applicant in person and the counsel for respondent, we find that OA lacks merit and applicant has not been able to (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/RA No.04/2020 in OA No.397/2018) 3 establish any infringement of his right or entitlement in this regard. Accordingly OA is dismissed."
3. The main contentions to seek the revision put forth by the review applicant are summarized below:-
(i) It is erroneous to state that OM dated 18.01.1994 was issued with the prior approval of Government of India since it was not passed under the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Review applicant contends that the OM dated 18.09.1994 is only an executive order, not under the provision of Article 309 of the constitution and hence it is illegal.
(ii) The applicant was recruited in the year 1971 in ISRO. He alleges that respondents have committed perjury in not placing before the Tribunal the true and correct norms of recruitment dated 15.11.1971 (Annexure A/3). The review applicant further contends that the last page of Annexure A/3 makes it clear that he was appointed as 'Engineer SD' from the date of his joining in ISRO i.e., 01.03.1971. He further argues that respondent authorities due to some personal jealousy had illegally placed the applicant in SD-2 only w.e.f 01.11.1971 instead of 01.03.1971. Respondents had rejected his earlier request for SD Grade w.e.f. 01.03.1971.
(iii) The review applicant has alleged that the respondents had tried to misguide the Tribunal by telling that the rules of recruitment in DOS/ISRO as in December 2001 were applicable to the applicant. Even these rules dated December 2001 makes it clear that there is no bar for recruitment of the Scientists/Engineer possessing higher qualification in DOS/ISRO.
(iv) The review applicant argues that OM dated 18.01.1994 is illegal and is not applicable to him.
(CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/RA No.04/2020 in OA No.397/2018) 4
4. The review applicant has quoted the Apex Court's judgment in AIR 1989 SC 2262 that statutory rules cannot be amended by executive order. The Apex court had reiterated this position in its judgment cited in (2007) 3 SCC 720. Further, the review applicant contends that in [(2007) 5 SCC 437], the Apex Court had ruled that a scheme framed by administrative execution in violation of supplementary rules cannot be sustained. He has also quoted Apex Court judgment in AIR [1991 SC 1933 & AIR 1981 SC 989] to drive home this point. The review applicant had also argued that this Tribunal had reached an erroneous conclusion that the provision of Rule 30 of CCS (Pension) Rules is applicable for the scientific/technical employees of DOS / ISRO employees of DOS/ISRO who were directly recruited at the level of Scientist/Engineer SD and above.
5. In the review application, review applicant has submitted yet again that he was recruited in 1971 and his service conditions were governed by Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 at the relevant time. The respondents changed the service conditions of the applicant by issuing the OM dated 18.01.1994 without any notice to the applicant. From the above averments Mr.R.K.Khola (Party in person) is seeking a review of the order dated 14.09.2020 mainly on two grounds:-
(1) His recruitment under Rule 1.11.1971 entitled him to SD Grade w.e.f. 01.03.1971 and (2) OM dated 18.01.1994 being an executive order cannot amend the statutory rules.
6. The scope for a review application is clearly defined in various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & others v. Kamal Sengupta and another (2008) 3 AISLJ 209 has held that the Tribunal can exercise the powers of a Civil Court in relation to matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/RA No.04/2020 in OA No.397/2018) 5 the Administrative Tribunals Act including the power of reviewing its decision. By referring to the power of a Civil Court to review its judgment/decision under Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principles subject to which the Tribunal can exercise the power of review. At para 28 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court culled out the principles which 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 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 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."
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in an another judgment in the case of Union of India v/s Tarit Ranjan Das 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 while dealing with the order passed in Review Application at paragraph 13 observed as under:
"The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application was in complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as sound (CAT/AHMEDABAD BENCH/RA No.04/2020 in OA No.397/2018) 6 reason contained therein whereby the original application was rejected. 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 and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with review petition as if it was hearing original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court."
8. Bearing in mind the above principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, existence of an error on the face of the record is sine qua non for review of an order. It is not permissible for the forum to hear the review application to act as an Appellate Authority in respect of the original order by a fresh re-hearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. We have examined the grounds urged by the review applicant in support of his prayer for reviewing the order and we find that the review applicant has failed to bring out any apparent error on the face of order under review.
9. The basis on which this Tribunal concluded its order and the papers relied upon in its course, have been indicated in paras 2 and 3 of the order of this Tribunal quoted above. We find that both the issues raised by the applicant herein were dealt with in para 2 of the order under review.
10. Under these circumstances, we regret to conclude that the grounds preferred by the review applicant for review of this Tribunal's order in OA No.397/2018 lacks merit as the review application is mere reiteration of the contentions and interpretations of the applicant. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
A.K.Dubey Jayesh V. Bhairavia (Administrative Member) (Judicial Member) SKV