Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M/O Communication & It vs S Wilson Sundararaj on 21 September, 2023
1 RA 12/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
RA/310/00012/2023 in OA/310/00142/2013
Dated Thursday the 21th day of September Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A)
1.Union of India,
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology,
rep by its Secretary, Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi 110001.
2.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director,
Corporate Office, New Delhi 110001.
3.Department of Telecommunications,
Rep by its Director (Establishment),
Chennai Telephones, O/o the Dy. General Manager (NW),
No. 52, EVK Sampath Salai, Chennai 600007.
4.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Rep by its Chief General Manager,
Chennai Telephones,
19, Millers Road, Chennai 600010.
5.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
rep by its General Manager (HR/Admn), Chennai Telephones,
19, Millers Road, Chennai 600010.
6.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Rep by its Dy. General Manager (HR/Admn),
Chennai Telephones, 19, Millers Road, Chennai 600010.
7.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Rep by its Senior Accounts Officer (C&A II),
Chennai Telephones, Head Quarters,
Flower Bazaar Exchange/Amenity Block,
3rd Floor, Chennai 600001.
8.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
2 RA 12/2023
rep by its Senior Accounts Officer,
(P&A) NP, Chennai Telephones,
North Peripheral, Anna Nagar East,
Chennai 600102. ....Applicants/Respondents
By Advocates Mr. S. Nagarajan (R1 & R3) &
Mr. K. R. Ramesh Kumar (R2 & 4-8)
Vs
S.Wilson Sundararaj,
Plot No. 157, S&P Garden,
Nolambur, Chennai 600095. ....Respondent/Applicant
By Advocate M/s. K. M. Ramesh
3 RA 12/2023
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. This Review Application is filed by the respondents in OA 142/2013 with a prayer to review the order, dated 31.03.2023, passed by this Tribunal in the said OA.
3. The main grounds raised by the review applicants are as under:-
i. The OA respondents are filing this RA with regard to the observations of this Tribunal in para 15 of the order though it is stated in para 18 of the order that the main issue for consideration in this OA is whether the appeal filed against the acquittal orders can be treated as continuation of criminal proceedings and on that ground the applicant can be denied his terminal benefits. The para 15 of the order reads as thus:-
"15. At the outset, it is to be noted that there is no dispute with regard to recruitment of the applicant as Temporary Telegraph Office Clerk in the Bangalore Telegraph Office under the Physically Handicapped quota. In view of the admitted fact, the applicant is entitled for all the service benefits under the Physically Handicapped category."
ii. The OA applicant sought the following benefits in the OA under the Physically Handicapped category:-
(a) The benefit of reservation in case of Promotions.
(b) He was deprived of the tax benefits available for physically handicapped citizens.
(c) Double Conveyance allowance.4 RA 12/2023
iii. The benefit of reservation in case of promotions and conveyance allowance come under the service benefits.
iv. The OA applicant is making a claim for the benefit of reservation in promotion under the physically handicapped category retrospectively from the date it became due till the date of his retirement in the year 2012, which is hopelessly barred by delays and laches.
v. The OA applicant has not complied with the mandatory procedural requirement intimated vide letter, dated 16.11.2006, till 2012 and has not challenged the same within the limitation period. vi. There is no further cause of action by the OA respondents as far as the claim towards conveyance allowance is concerned.
4. On perusal of the RA, it seems that the review applicants are trying to re- argue the matter afresh, as if in appeal, which is not permissible. Under the garb of review, the review applicants cannot be allowed to raise the same or additional grounds, which were considered by this Tribunal while passing the order under review.
5. The scope of review lies in a narrow compass as prescribed under Order XLVII, Rule (1) of the CPC. None of the grounds raised in the RA brings it within the scope and purview of review. If in the opinion of the review applicants, the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, the remedy lies elsewhere.
6. In the case of Meera Bhanja (Smt) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhury 5 RA 12/2023 (Smt) (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"In the present case the approach of the Division Bench dealing with the review proceedings clearly shows that it has overstepped its jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC by merely styling the reasoning adopted by the earlier Division Bench as suffering from a patent error. It would not become a patent error or error apparent by doing so. The Review Bench has re-appreciated the entire evidence, sat almost as court of appeal and has reversed the findings reached by the earlier Division Bench. Even if the earlier Division Bench's findings were found to be erroneous, it would be no ground for reviewing the same, as that would be the function of an appellate court...."
7. Again in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das (2004) SCC (L&S) 160), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"13. 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 reasons 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 order and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with the review petition as if it was hearing an original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court."
8. Existence of an error apparent on the face of the record is sine qua non for reviewing the order. The review applicants have failed to bring out any error apparent on the face of record in the order under review.
9. On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that "the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision."
6 RA 12/2023At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under:-
"(i) The power of Tribunal to review it 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) of 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 specific grounds
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (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 a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii) 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.
(ix) 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."
10. In view of the law laid down in the above extracted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not find any merit in the Review Application.
11. Accordingly, RA is dismissed. RA applicants/OA respondents are directed to implement the order, dt. 31.03.2023, within the time limit fixed by this Tribunal.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Member (A) Member (J)
21.09.2023
SKSI