Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pawan Jindal vs Union Of India Through on 7 September, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH R.A.NO.222 OF 2014 (In OA No.1387/13) New Delhi, this the 7th day of September, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . 1. Pawan Jindal, S/o Shri B.K. Jindal, House No.C-356, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. 2. Sunil Bhalla, S/o (late) Shri Roshan Lal Bhalla House No.X-308 Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023 3. Narendra Nigam, S/o (Late) Shri B.K. Nigam, House No.Y/355, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi-110023 4. Z. Tirkey, S/o (late) S. Tirkey, House No.839/UG-4, Aman Residency, Shalimar Garden Extension-I, Sahibabad-201005. 5. Upendra Kumar, s/o Shri Uma Shankar Mehta Flat No.514, Pocket 3-C Sector 16-B, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078. ..Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. S.M.Garg) VERSUS Union of India through 1. Secretary to the Government of India Department of Defence Production Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. Directorate General, Quality Assurance Department of Defence Production Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011 Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. R.V. Sinha for Mr.R.N.Singh) ORDER RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):
We have heard Mr. S.M.Garg, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, and Mr.R.V.Sinha for Mr.R.N.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The review petitioners were applicants in OA No.1387 of 2013. This review application is filed by them under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 17.7.2014 passed by the Tribunal disposing of OA No.1387 of 2013. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order dated 17.7.2014 (ibid) read thus:
7. Para 8 (ii) of the OA is for a direction to the respondents to grant the benefits. As a matter of fact, at present stage, in the absence of any decision having been taken by the respondents, requirement of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has not been fulfilled, in as much as the matter had not been decided by the respondents. However, in the interest of justice, looking at the continuing and pending grievance of the applicants, we are of the view that it would be sufficient that the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicants. For that purpose, a copy of the OA be forwarded to the respondent no.2 along with copy of this order. Respondents may consider the grounds stated in the OA as well as the extant rules and instructions on the subject and take a view in the matter within a period of 12 weeks, and after the decision is taken to communicate the same to the applicants within the aforenoted period.
8. If, however, any grievance still continues with respect to the applicants, they are at liberty to take appropriate legal action, if so advised.
3. In Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), 1995(1) SCC 170, the Honble Supreme Court has held that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evidence and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured in a review proceedings.
4. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596, the Honble Supreme Court has held that 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. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.
5. In Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate court in respect of the original order by a fresh order and rehearing the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.
6. In State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735, the Honble Apex Court has scanned various earlier judgments and summarized the principles laid down therein which read thus:
35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-noted judgments 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 CPC.
(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 Honble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & others, 2013(8) SCC 320, has laid down the following contours with regard to maintainability, or otherwise, of review petition:
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1 When the review will be maintainable:
i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words any other sufficient reason have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 122) and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526) to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (23013(8) SCC 337).
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:
i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.
8. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the above decisions, let us consider the claim of the review petitioners and find out whether a case has been made out by them for reviewing the order dated 17.7.2014 passed in OA No.1387 of 2013.
9. In support of their claim for reviewing the order dated 17.7.2014(ibid), the review petitioners have pleaded that they recently came to know that during pendency of the above O.A., the respondents had taken a decision on 13.12.2013 rejecting their claim for grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on completion of 4 years service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- as per the resolution of the Ministry of Finance, dated 29.8.2008. The said decision was neither communicated to them, nor was the same placed on record by the respondents. Had the respondents brought the said decision, dated 13.12.2013, to the notice of the Tribunal, the above O.A. would not have been disposed of by the Tribunal without arriving at a decision on merit. Therefore, the order dated 17.7.2014 needs to be reviewed and the above O.A. decided on merit.
10. Opposing the R.A., the respondents have filed a counter reply. 11. We have perused the records of the O.A. and R.A. along with the order dated 17.7.2014 (ibid). A perusal of the order dated 17.7.2014 (ibid), which is sought to be reviewed, reveals that after considering the materials available on record of O.A., the Tribunal held that the applicants (review petitioners), without exhausting the alternative remedy as to redressal of their grievances in terms of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, had filed the O.A. However, instead of rejecting the O.A. as being hit by Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 17.7.2014 (ibid), disposed of the O.A., with a direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicants (review petitioners) and to take a decision within the period stipulated therein. In the order, dated 17.7.2014 (ibid), the Tribunal also observed that the applicants (review petitioners), if so advised, would be at liberty to take appropriate legal action in the event of their grievance still subsisting with respect to the matter in question. The order dated 17.7.2014(ibid), which is sought to be reviewed, was passed by the Tribunal on the basis of materials available on record of the O.A. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation materials and contentions of the parties, which were available on record, cannot be questioned in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or for some reason akin thereto. The review petitioners have not shown any material error, manifest on the face of the order, dated 17.7.2014 (ibid), which undermines its soundness, or results in miscarriage of justice.
12. In the light of our above discussions, we hold that the applicant-review petitioners have not been able to make out a case for reviewing the order dated 17.7.2014 passed in OA No.1387 of 2013, and that the Review Application is liable to be rejected. However, we would like to observe here that the review petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh O.A. challenging the order dated 13.12.2013 (ibid), along with an application for condonation of delay, if they are so advised.
13. With the above observation, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN