Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. A.K. S. Rathore vs National Small Industries Corporation ... on 11 February, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench RA No.12/2013 in OA No.2461/2011 New Delhi, this the 11th day of February, 2013 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Sh. A.K. S. Rathore, S/o Late Sh. O.P. Singh, R/o A-128, Sector 21Dr. Sahadeva Singh 36, Jia Sarai, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110 016. . Review Applicant. Versus 1. National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC) Ltd. Through its CMD NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi 110 020. 2. Sh. A. S. Gupta Block B-III, House No.177, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110 063. 3. Bishwanath Mitra L-466, 3rd Floor, Raghunath Vihar (Army Complex) Sector-14, Khargar, Navi Mumbai 410 210. 4. Sh. Ravindra Nath C/o NSIC Ltd., NSIC Bhawan Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi 110 020. 5. Sh. R. K. Chaturvedi C/o NSIC Ltd. NSIC Bhawan Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi 110 020. 6. G. Jaya Seelan Flat No.23, Shriketan Apartments, Vasundahra Enclave, Delhi 110 096. 7. Sh. A. K. Mittal C/o NSIC Ltd. NSIC Bhawan Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi 110 020. 8. Sh. K. Anand Kumar H. No.64, First Main, Michere Pallaya, 2nd Street, 80 Feet Road, Indira nagar, Bangalore 5600075. 9. Sh. Rajeev Bhatnagar III-E/145, Ridgwood Apartments, DLF Phase-IV, Gurgaon (Haryana). 10. R. K. Celly 14/06, Ground Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. . Review Respondents. : O R D E R (IN CIRCULATION) : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A):
This Review Application has been filed by the applicant in OA No. 2461/2011 decided by us in our order dated 04.12.2012. The grounds taken by the review applicant are more or less same/similar to the grounds taken by him in the Original Application. His contention in the RA is that there are errors apparent on the face of the records as explained in the RA. He has indicated that the Tribunal has noted the applicant to have been eligible in the year 1996 for promotion whereas retrospective promotion has not been the direction of this Tribunal in its order. Further, his contention is that the issue of his compulsory retirement though referred to in the judgment and the said penalty being under challenge before the Tribunal in OA No.3186/2012, the Tribunal should have directed to convene DPC for the year 1996 and promoted the review applicant.
2. With reference to the above grounds, it is noted that in the judgment of the Tribunal it was identified that he was eligible for promotion in 1996 after completion of probation, but the judgment also noted that whether the availability of the vacancies and, if so, whether such vacancies needed to be filled up either by promotion or by direct recruitment quota as per the rules or not was within the functional domain of the Competent Authority. Admittedly, the official respondents have taken up the matter for filling up the posts by convening DPCs not in the year 1996, but subsequently in the years 2001, 2003 and 2005. Therefore, harping on the same point that in 1996, the DPC should have been met to promote the applicant which has already been fairly dealt in our judgment does not deserve consideration in the RA. With regard to compulsory retirement of the review applicant, the judgment has also made a mention of the same. It is admitted by the applicant in the RA that the OA No. 3186/2012 in which he has challenged the compulsory retirement has not yet reached finality in the Tribunal and, as such, no error apparent could be noticed in our order dated 04.12.2012.
3. In the guise of review to recall our order dated 04.12.2012, the Tribunal cannot sit as an Appellate Forum to re-adjudicate the issues already adjudicated by us. In this regard, we place our reliance on the judgments of Honble Supreme court in the matter of Union of India Versus Tarit Mohan Das (2003 STPL (L&E) 32747 SC) decided on 8-10-2003 and Gopal Singh Versus State Cadre Forest Officers Association [2007 STPL(LE) 38452 SC] and State of West Bengal Versus Kamal Sengupta [2008 (8) SCC 612].
4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error apparent in the face of the orders passed by us on 04.12.2012. The grounds taken by the review applicant do not have any logic and are rejected.
5. In the result, the Review Application being devoid of merit is dismissed in circulation.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (Syed Rafat Alam) Member (J) Chairman /naresh/