Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Udai Veer Singh vs Deepak Kumar on 26 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
R.A. No.92 of 2020
in
C.P. No.14 of 2016 in OA 2151/2014
Orders reserved on : 13.02.2026
Orders pronounced on : 26.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
1. Sh. Virender Singh Chauhan
Pharmacist, Grade-C
S/o Late Sh. Babu Singh
Aged about 56 years
ESIC Dispensary MayurVihar,
Delhi-110091
2. Sh. Kamal Prakash
Pharmacist, Grade-C
S/o Late Sh. ShayamCharan
Aged about 51 years
ESIC Hospital, Sahibabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201005
3. Sh. SanjitBarua,
Pharmacist, Grade-C
S/o Late Sh. BimalBarua
Aged about 36 years
ESIC Dispensary, Naida,
Sector 57, Uttar Pradesh-201301
4. Sh. Mahender Kumar Meena,
Pharmacist, Grade-C
S/o Sh. BabuLal,
Aged about 38 years
ESIC Dispensary, Naida,
Sector 12, Uttar Pradesh-201301
5. Sh. Gautam Singh Rawat
Pharmacist, Grade-C
S/o Sh. Narnian Singh Rawat,
Aged about 34 years
ESIC Dispensary, MayurVihar,
Delhi-110091
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 2 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
6. Sh.Vijay Kumar
Pharmacist, Grade-C
S/o Late Sh. Rajvir Singh,
Aged about 36 years
ESIC Dispensary, MayurVihar,
Delhi-110091
7. Sh. Suriil Mehto
Pharmacist, Grade-C
S/o Sh. RamjiMehto,
Aged about 36 years
ESIC Dispensary, NandNagri,
Delhi-110093
8. Sh. Rahul Nimiya,
Pharmacist, Grade-C
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
Aged about 34 years
ESIC Dispensary, NandNagri
Delhi-110093
...Review Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Sagar Saxena)
VERSUS
1. Raj Kumar,
Director General,
ESIC Headquarters,
CIG Road, Panchdeep Bhawan,
New Delhi-110002
2. Mr. Shankar Aggarwal
Secretary
Union of India,
Ministry of Labour,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg, New Delhi, 110001
....Review Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Sanjeev Sahey with Shri S.N. Verma)
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 3 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present RA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the review applicants (original applicants in the lis) seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Review the Final order dated 13.03.2020 and direct the ESIC to review their proposed cadre structure and create a cadre structure as per directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal given vide its judgement dated 06.05.2015.
b) Hold the respondents liable for contempt of court on account of non-compliance of order dated 06.05.2015;
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
3. Since the review applicants are seeking review of the order dated 13.03.2020 passed in C.P. No.14/2016, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same as under :-
"1. The applicants herein are working as Pharmacists which carries a pay scale of Pay Band-I of Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 in the respondents ESIC. The applicants had since been granted ACP/MACP benefits and at present, they are in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in Pay Band-III.
2. The applicants herein had earlier preferred the OA No.2151/2014 which was decided vide order dated 06.05.2015 wherein following directions were passed:"
"13. In view of the above position, we allow this OA and direct the Respondent-ESIC to formulate a proper cadre structure for the Pharmacists working under them and thereafter consider the Applicants and other similarly placed persons for promotions to the higher grades so created. They shall also suitably amend the existing Recruitment Rule$ for the post of Pharmacists. While doing so, they may be guided by the recommendations of the Pharmacy Council of India and their own specific requirement. They shall also set in motion of the cadre structure as early as possible but in any case within a period of 4 months from the date of 1·eceipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."
3. The respondents challenged these directions by filing Writ Petition No.8082/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 4 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.11.2017. The order passed by the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:-
"This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner against the order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, by which the O.A. filed by the respondent was allowed.
Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, on the basis of instructions of Mr. Sahay submits that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 06.05.2015 has been complied with inasmuch as three posts have been created. She further submits that promotional channels to higher grade have also been created for the respondents. In view thereof, it is contended that the writ petition is not pressed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that after appropriate information is received, in case the respondents have any grievance, they would seek such remedy in accordance with law.
The writ petition as well as C.MAPPL33506/2016 is dismissed in view of the statement made."
4. The applicants have now preferred the instant CP, alleging that the directions of the Tribunal in Para 2 above, have not been complied with.
5. The applicants pleaded that the Pharmacy Council of India has recommended a 7 level cadre structure starting from level of Pharmacists with Pay Scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and going up to the 7th higher level of Director (Pharmacy), which is equivalent to Director of Medical Education. It is pleaded that despite orders by the Tribunal, this has not been implemented.
6. The respondents had prepared a proposal to create the post of Pharmacist (PB-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800) which is Entry Grade. Thereafter, Sr. Pharmacist at PB-II with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- and thereafter, Chief Pharmacist at PB- II with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. The respondents prepared the recruitment rules also and the same were formally discussed with ESIC Pharmacists Association who appears to be a recognized body in ESIC who have a Pan-India operation with large number of staff. The respondents also submitted a minutes of said meeting dated 23.o1.2020. In follow up, formal consent has also been sought from ESIC Pharmacist Association, however an agreement has not been reached as yet.
7. The respondents have also produced a letter dated 11.03.2020 addressed to Sh. Sunil Kumar, Pharmacist, who is the President of ESIC Pharmacists Association, seeking the acceptance of Association to the changes and the Recruitment Rules (RRs). This letter reads as under:-
"Please refer the discussions during the subject meeting in which the statutory provisions related to published draft RRs were brought to the participants of the meeting duly explaining .the reasonability of the proposed RRs.
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 5 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
In this regard it may be recalled that ESIC Pharmacists Association was required to submit a written statement after their discussion with other members of the association along with Shri Udaiveer Singh who has separately filed a case OA 2151/2014 before Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench for finalization of RRs. The said written submission is still awaited despite repeated personal reminders.
It may be noted that non-finalization of the said RRs is solely attributable to your association at this stage because your association itself is obstructing ·the process by taking up the matter through different channels.
You are once again requested to submit your written statement as assured in the said meeting by 13th March 2020 positively else it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this regard and process to finalize the RRS in question will be initiated."
8. The respondents pleaded that it is in view of non-communication of consent by ESIC Pharmacist Association, that the RRs have not been finalized as yet. It is due to this that despite the efforts, posts could not be operated. However, ACP/MACP benefits have been extended to the applicants.
9. The applicant however, pleaded that non acceptance of the proposal by ESIC Pharmacists Association cannot be a cause for the ESIC Corporation not to comply with the directions given by the Tribunal in Para 2 above, and therefore, the applicant pleaded that there is a case for contempt.
10. Matter has been heard. Learned counsel Sh. Sagar Saxena represents the· applicants and learned counsels Ms. Jhun Jhun with Sh. Rishabh Nanglia & and Sh. S. K. Tripathi for Sh. Gyanendra Singh represent the respondents.
11. The Tribunal's directions were to decide a cadre structure for ESIC and while doing so ESIC was to be guided by recommendations of Pharmacy Council of India as well as by the own specific requirements of ESIC.
12. It is also seen that the respondents ESIC had been proactive and they have prepared the RRs and the consent was sought from ESIC Pharmacists Association. Since, ESIC is a big organization who has an ESIC Pharmacists Association, it can be easily understood that their consent may be necessary to maintain Industrial peace and smooth functioning. It is seen from the letter dated 1i.03.2020 that the said consent was sought but it is still awaited from the Association.
13. It appears that the Association is not satisfied with the three levels proposed by ESIC in keeping with their requirements and instead, they are seeking creation of more or all the 7 level of posts as was recommended by the Pharmacy Council of India.
14. The Tribunal's directions were to keep the recommendations of the Pharn1acy Council of India as a guidance only and it was to be modified by ESIC to suit their specific requirements. The Tribunal had not directed to adopt the recommendations of Pharmacy Council of India.
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 6 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
15. In view of substantive action taken by respondents, the Tribunal is of the view that there is no justification for contempt. It is noted that it is an unworkable situation if members seek compliance of directions but their Association withholds consent to the proposed course of action by ESIC, which was undertaken in follow up of same very directions. It is also expected of members of ESIC Pharmacists Association to pursue with their Association for communicating consent.
16. In view of forgoing, there is no case for contempt. Accordingly, the CP is closed and notices are discharged. No costs." CONTENTIONS OF THE REVIEW APPLICANTS
4. For seeking the review, the following grounds have been pleaded by the review applicants:
(i) there are errors apparent on the face of records and sufficient cause for review of the aforesaid Order dated 13.03.2020 passed in the captioned C.P;
(ii) despite the directions of this Tribunal passed vide Order dated 6.5.2015 in OA No.2151/2014, the respondents have not created cadre structure and what is being termed (said) as cadre formation by the respondents is nothing but an exercise which is being carried out as per DOP&T's instructions issued vide OM dated 13.10.2015 wherein only change of classifications of the posts from group 'C' to Group 'B' have been proposed for already existing cadre structure;
(iii) the cadre structure as proposed by the respondents already existed since 2011 and said cadre was already placed before this Tribunal for its consideration as Annexure P-20 of the O.A. and it is only after considering the said cadre in Annexure P-20, this Tribunal passed order dated 06.05.2015 directing the respondents to create a cadre structure keeping in view the 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 7 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 recommendations of Pharmacy Council of India and the functional requirements of ESI itself. However, respondents did not comply with the directions of this Tribunal and have placed on record the old cadre itself renaming it as new;
(iv) the respondents cannot rename the old cadre structure as the new cadre structure and take the Tribunal for a ride. This is misrepresentation and concealment of vital facts by the respondents;
(v) cadre structure created in 2011 had taken into account the existing realities of 2008 and the base year was 2008 itself and the repetition of the cadre structure of 2011 is wrong as it does not take into account either the guidelines of the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) or the functional requirements of the ESIC, despite specific directions of this tribunal to do so vide order dated 06.05.2015.
(vi) the respondents have misled this Tribunal by falsely stating that they have prepared fresh RRs and a new cadre structure, whereas, the correct fact is that the said cadre structure consisting of two promotional posts i.e. Sr. Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist was notified In Gazette of India vide notification in Govt. of India Gazette weekly notification in Part III Section 4 Page 3394-3397 dated May 21st, 2011 but benefit of which was not given to a single Pharmacist till filing of OA 2151/2014 and till date also;
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 8 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
(vii) this Tribunal also failed to appreciate that respondent no.1 had
sent a letter dated 11.03.2020 to the Association just two (2) days before the hearing in the above Contempt Petition on 13.03.2020 and same did not reach the association till 13.03.2020, therefore, the question of reply or so called consent as mentioned in para 12 of the impugned order could not have been given;
(viii) the respondents did not consider the 1994 ESIC Committee report, which was constituted by the Director general ESIC and which recommended creation of promotional posts of one Dy. Chief Pharmacist for each wing of central store; (total number of posts 04) and for dispensaries having 07 Pharmacists, one Dy. Chief Pharmacists each. Based on the above, the committee had recommended 25 posts of Dy. Chief Pharmacists. This recommendation was for three years after that reviewing the position for conversion of some posts of Dy. Chief Pharmacist to Chief Pharmacist in Main Store. From the above facts, it is evident that the departmental committee had felt the need of Chief Pharmacist at Dispensary level in 1994 i.e. 26 years back. Whereas in draft proposed cadre by ESIC 2018, the post of senior pharmacist has been proposed for Hospitals only, which in itself is retrograde;
"3.8 Learned counsel also submitted that the committee formed by the ESIC authorities vide letter dated 30th January, 2017 had observed "Over the decades technological advancements and change have taken place in the field of health service delivery & management and in order to upkeep the pace with the 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 9 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 changing scenario, it is essential to affect required changes in existing cadre so as to ensure efficiency of incumbents and proper utilisation of their services. In addition, segregation of posts in a cadre with functional responsibility brings in supervisory element as well the element of value addition in the process."
From the above, it is evident that ESIC needs highly advanced technical services, quality assurance on drugs etc. Hence, it requires highly qualified resources but has failed to incorporate these changes in Educational qualifications in their report. Hence, the recommendations of the committee were out rightly rejected by the Association vide its letter dated 25.07.2017;
(viii) Learned counsel also submitted that as per 2011 Notification of Promotional Cadre of Pharmacist two promotional post in cadre of Pharmacists i.e. Senior Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist, but not a single pharmacist has been promoted to these notified posts till date;
(ix) 7th CPC while recommending the pay scales for the post of pharmacists in Central Government had observed the work of the Pharmacist as "Pharmacists are responsible for storing and dispensing the medicines to patients and recommended the pay scales for the posts of Pharmacist accordingly. The entry level qualification for Pharmacists is Class XII (Science) with two years Diploma in Pharmacy and registration with State Pharmacy Council. It is important to mention that in ESIC Pharmacists have 28 types of job responsibilities ESIC pharmacists are having higher educational qualifications both in already notified and proposed 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 10 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 draft Recruitment Regulations. But scale of pay was/is not granted in both already notified and proposed draft Recruitment Rules;
(x) there is no change in the scale of pay as per DOP&T OM dated 20.01.2015 according to which grade pay of Rs. 4800 is to be granted for bachelor's degree in Engineering/Technology as B. Pharm is a 4 year Technical Degree under ALL India Council for Technical Education Act 1987. This shows the apathy of the respondents towards the pharmacists working in ESIC;
(xi) while posting pharmacists in SMC/SSMC/SMO offices have specifically mentioned to post senior most pharmacist(Annexure- K), means there is functional requirement of that post in SMC/SSMC/SMO offices, wherein in proposed cadre structure same has not been taken into consideration;
(xii) ESIC has not considered any promotional post while proposing the cadre structure, where six pharmacists are working against the sanctioned post of two since more than 10 years discharging various important and responsible works.
(xiii) in the proposed Cadre structure the Educational Qualifications for the post of Pharmacist has not been revised as per DoPT's OM dated 18.03.1988 and remain unchanged which was since 1977 (Annexure K-3), i.e. Degree and diploma are not one and same and equal qualifications this ambiguity has not been removed by the ESIC; and
(xiv) it is fit case for review of the impugned judgment.
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 11 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
CONTENTIONS OF THE REVIEW RESPONDENTS
5. At the out set, learned counsel appearing for review respondents raised the preliminary objection that this Review Application is per se not maintainable, as there is no error apparent on the face of the Order sought to review. The scope of Review is very limited and can be granted in extremely rare circumstances. On a plain reading of the pleadings made in the Review Application, it is apparent that the same do not reflect any error apparent of the face of record. Thus, this Review Application is an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed forthwith.
5.1 Further, it is argued that the present Review Application also consists third party, who were not party to the Original Contempt Petition being CP 14/2016 or in the OA No.2151/2014. 5.2 Further, it is argued that the present applicants are testing the waters through the present Review Application and trying to obtain orders for themselves under the garb of other original applicants in the contempt proceedings or in the Original Application. This modus operandi should not be permitted. Rather it should be discouraged by dismissing the instant Review Applications qua the third party Applicants with exemplary costs.
5.3 Learned counsel argued that the present Review Application is filed as an abuse of the power of judicial review of this Tribunal's Order The Review Applicants under the garb of this RA are seeking to challenge the Cadre restructuring executed by the CP in compliance of 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 12 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 the Order dated 06.05.2015. However, the law of review is unambiguous in light of precedents of Hon'ble Apex Courts. 5.4 It is a settled law that the review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record.
5.5 It is submitted that ahe Applicants are seeking review of Order dated 13.03.2020 passed in CP no. 14/2016 in OA No. 2151/2014. However, neither there is any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the Impugned Order nor there is any sufficient reason for review of the said Order.
5.6 It is also submitted that the review applicants seeks to challenge the Order dated 13.03.2020 on merits on the basis of alleged additional facts and documents. This cannot be permitted under the ambit of review and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5.7 It is further submitted that after passing of the Order dt.13.03.2020, the issue was revisited on the directions of the Chairman, ESIC. However, in view of the resentment shown by representatives of Pharmacist Association, the Competent Authority decided to continue with the existing norms of Central Health Services. Thus, with the approval of the Minister of State for Labour and Employment (Independent Incharge) and Chairman, ESIC, it had also been decided to make absolute analogous Cadre as in CHS. Thus, vide Letter dated 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 13 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 19.02.2021 notified the decision of Competent Authority and notified new nomenclature of the 04 Posts for Pharmacist Cadre namely Pharmacist (Entry Cadre), Senior Pharmacist (NFG), Pharmacy Officer (NFG) and Senior Pharmacy Officer (NFG) i.e. Level 5, Level 6, Level 7 and Level 8 respectively. This nomenclature of the posts is in parity with the CHS Institutions. The Applicant has neither brought the said facts on record, nor there is any challenge to the same. The said new nomenclature of the posts have been implemented by the respondents since then.
5.8 Learned counsel also argued that vide the present RA, the applicants are seeking review of dismissal of CP 14/2016 on the grounds as averred in the Review Application. However, it is submitted that the respondents have complied with the directions of the Tribunal as passed in OA 2151/2014 and the same has been affirmed and upheld by Hon'ble High Court m WP (C) 8082/2016 and this Tribunal in CP 14/2016. 5.9 Thus, it is submitted that the applicants are re-agitating the issues which have already attained finality by judicial pronouncements. The Impugned Order sought to be reviewed is in turn another fallacious attempt of applicants to seek reconsideration of Cadre Restructuring done by the respondents in compliance of Order dated 06.05.2015 passed in OA No.151/2014. The pleas raised by the applicants do not qualify to be adjudicated under the ambit of Review jurisdiction. 5.10 Learned counsel argued that the instant RA is more like an Appeal. The Applicants are attempting to excessively step into the jurisdiction of Appeal under the garb of review. However, the same 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 14 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 cannot be permitted in the instant RA and thus, the present Review Application cannot be entertained in view of the settled law as stated below:
(i) In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations:
"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in. every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) The law is also affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, where it was observed as under:
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise '. "
(iii) The law is well settled that the Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 15 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 reviewing any order. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas vs. union of India the Hon Supreme Court held: (SCC p. 251, Para 56) "56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. "
(iv) The Applicants have failed to plead any mistake apparent on the face of the record. An application for review would lie inter alia when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. In Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai, the Hon'ble Apex Court held: (SCC p.
514, Para 6) held :
"6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. "
(v) The law of Review jurisdiction is again reiterated in the judgment of Meera Bhanja. In that case, it has been reiterated that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to review must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning.
(vi) In the Review Application, the Applicants have alleged that OP wilfully did not comply with the directions of this Tribunal and did not restructured the Cadre of Pharmacist as per the guidelines of Pharmacy Council of India. On the contrary, it is submitted that review respondents have endeavored to comply with every direction of this Tribunal in letter and spirit. The review respondents upon considering the representations of review applicants and recommendations of 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 16 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 Pharmacy Council Of India guidelines have identified requisite promotional posts and amended the Recruitment Regulations as per its Organizational requirements. The review respondents have also sent the amended regulations to the Ministry for their approval and notification. However, it is the Review Applicants, who upon their representation objected to the Cadre restructuring and delayed the implementation thereof. Consequently, the Ministry of Labour and employment returned the proposed amendments causing further delay. Respondent No.2 returned the Proposed Amendments on the Representation/ Protest made by the Association of Pharmacist. Thus, the review respondents cannot be held liable for the acts of the review applicants.
(vii) it is reiterated that vide its Judgment dated 06.05.2015, this Tribunal has not issued any such directions as alleged by the review applicants. Vide the said Order/Judgment, the review respondents were directed by this Tribunal to formulate a Cadre structure for the Pharmacist and suitably amend the Recruitment Rules keeping in view its own organizational requirement and suitability. It was also directed that in the process, the Respondent may be guided by the recommendations of Pharmacy Council of India. It is reiterated that recommendations of Pharmacy Council was not mandatory and the same could have been modified as per the requirements of the review respondents and its organizational structure. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No.8082/2016 and by this Tribunal in CP No. 14/2016. A contrary view cannot be pleaded under the ambit of review.
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 17 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
(viii) It is also pleaded that in compliance to the directions of the Tribunal, the review respondents sought guidance from the Pharmacy Council of India, who vide its Letter dated 16.03.2017 (Annexure A-1) furnished the recommendations on Cadre structure and provided a Cadre as existed on Appendix-III of Pharmacy Practice Regulation, 2015 as 1) Pharmacist, 2) Sr Pharmacist, 3) Chief Pharmacist. These recommendations were issued in adherence to the Pharmacy Practice Regulations 2015 as framed under Pharmacy Act 1948.
(ix) It is also stated that in compliance to the directions of Hon'ble CAT, the review respondents constituted a Committee to assess and consider the representations of Pharmacist Association and recommendation of Pharmacy Council of India. After detailed assessment, the said Committee also recommended creation of two promotional posts, namely, Senior Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist. The said Committee specifically dealt in his report dated 2104.2017, the existing promotional avenues in Pharmacist Cadre, i.e., Grade Pay scheme and the proposed recommendations of Pharmacy Council of India. Vide its Report, the Committee carefully arrived at its recommendations of creation of two promotional posts, namely, Senior Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist. The report dated 21.04.2017 (Annexure-2) issued by the said Committee is duly approved by the Director General of review respondents.
(x) In the meanwhile, the review applicants initiated CP No.14/2016 against the review respondents, alleging non-compliance of the directions of this Tribunal dated 06.05.2015. The review respondents 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 18 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 were constrained to approach the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.8082/2016, wherein it was intimated that 02 promotional posts of Pharmacist Cadre were identified and same pending approval of the Corporation. In view of the above said report of the Committee and submissions made, the Review Applicants were directed to seek remedy as per law, if they wish to challenge the said Cadre restructuring vide Order dated 09.11.2017 (Annexure-3). In view of the statements made there, the said WP(C) No.8082/2016 was disposed off as not pressed.
(xi) Thereafter, the review respondents initiated the process of amendment of Recruitment Regulations as per their organizational structure and required framework. Comments were also sought from the stake holders on the draft Recruitment Regulations vide OM. dated 06.07.2018 (Annexure-4).
(xii) Subsequently, vide OMs dated 08.07.2019 and 06.01.2020 [Annexure-5(Colly)], sanctioned strength of Pharmacist Cadres proposed to be revised with the approval of Director General of different nodal branches. The observations of this Tribunal in Order dated 13.03.2020 is passed after considering material on records and the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 8082/2016, wherein no grounds for contempt are made out against the review respondents.
(xiii) The above CP was disposed of in view of the observations that there is no non-compliance by the review respondents qua the cadre restructuring of the review applicants-Pharmacist. A contrary view is not possible under review jurisdiction in light of the law settled in Lily 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 19 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 Thomas vs. Union of India, reported (2000) 6 SC 224, wherein it is observed and held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power.
5.10. On the strength of above submissions, learned counsel argued that the present RA does not disclose any mistake apparent on the face of the record nor there is any sufficient reason to revisit the Impugned Order dated 13.03.2020 that can be adjudicated under review jurisdiction. Hence, the present RA is not maintainable. 5.11 Learned counsel reiterated that some of the review applicants are stranger to the instant OA and thus, the present Review Application is nothing but a shell to conceal the fallacious attempt of Review Applicants herein to seek relief under review jurisdiction. The some of the review applicants, who are alien to the instant OA have no right to seek review of the Order dated 13.03.2020. The recourse opted by review applicants is bad in law and liable to be curbed with heavy and exemplary costs.
5.12 Learned counsel also reiterated that recommendations of Pharmacy Council were not mandatory and the same could have been modified as per the requirements of review respondents and its organizational structure. Thus, the necessary compliance has already been done by the review respondents. Rather, it is the Review Applicants who are creating hindrances in successful implementation of restructured Cadre by writing unwarranted and frivolous objections to 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 20 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 Ministry of Labour. Further, the OMs relied by the review applicants alleging similar exercise by review respondents in different Cadre is not relevant to the present Review Application. At best, the same can be agitated in the form of new OA, if they so desire and not here before this Tribunal under review jurisdiction. Further, it is submitted that the cadre structure as created in the year 2011 was not actually implemented. On the contrary, during the same period, the review respondents adopted Grade Pay Scheme for the Pharmacists in view of the DGHS Notification dated 16.07.2010 bearing No. G-12-11/1/2010- CGHS.II in terms of Sec 17(2) (a) of the ESI Act, 1948. Order dated 09.05.2011 (Annexure-6) passed by review respondents to effect the said Notification of Grade Pay. Accordingly, the scheme of Grade Pay was implemented w.e.f. 01.01.06, wherein pharmacist with a completion of 2 years of regular service was granted a Grade Pay of 4,200/-.
5.13 Learned counsel also submitted that during the finalizations of said RRs, recommendations of Fats Track Committee of Central Government were implemented by the review respondents vide Letter A-28/2/1/2009 Med-VI dated 09.05.2011, keeping parity with the CHS pharmacist in terms of Sec 17 (2) of the Act, wherein the Review Applicants were benefitted by grant of higher scale on the basis of regular period f service. The Review Applicants have concealed material facts about the said benefits.
5.14 Learned counsel also argued that the issue has already been examined by this Tribunal and thus, accordingly passed its decision on 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 21 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 13.03.2020. Further it is submitted that Cadre restructuring involves detailed study and consideration of various aspects. In the present case, the whole exercise has been duly performed by the high-powered Committee formed by review respondents for this purpose. The review respondents constituted the said Committee to assess and consider the representations of Pharmacist Association and recommendation of Pharmacy Council of India. After detailed assessment the said Committee also recommended creation of two promotional posts namely Senior Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist. It is pertinent to mention here that the said Committee specifically dealt in his report dated 21.04.2017 the existing promotional avenues in Pharmacist Cadre i.e. Grade Pay scheme and the proposed recommendations of Pharmacy Council of India. Vide its Report, the Committee carefully arrived at its recommendations of creation of two promotional posts, namely, Senior Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist. Thereafter, the review respondents initiated the process of amendment of Recruitment Regulations as per their organizational structure and required framework. Comments were also sought from the stake holders on the draft Recruitment Regulations vide OM No. A-12/1112/RR-Pham/2017-Med-VI dated 06.07.2018. Subsequently, vide OMs dated 08.07.2019 and 06.01.2020, sanctioned strength of Pharmacist Cadre was proposed to be revised with the approval of Director General of different nodal branches. Subsequently, revision of RRs was forwarded to Ministry of Labour & employment for approval of chairman vide Letter/file dated 02.08.2019. However, in the meanwhile representatives of Pharmacist Association comprising of 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 22 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 some Review Applicants submitted an undated representation (Annexure-7) in the last week of December 2019 and objected to the proposed RR. Pursuant to these objections, the file was returned and thus the Review Applicants themselves are responsible for delay. On 23.01.2020, on the directions of the Ld. Chairman, ESIC, conducted a meeting with representatives of said Association (Annexure-8), wherein it was agreed that Review Applicants shall in form Affidavit submit their agreement or disagreement to the Cadre Structure proposed by ESIC. Subsequently, the issue was revisited on the directions of the Chairman, Review Respondent No.1. In view of the resentment shown by representatives of Pharmacist Association, the Competent Authority decided to continue with the existing norms of Central Health Services. Thus, with the approval of the Minister of State for Labour and Employment (Independent Incharge) and Chairman, ESIC, review respondent No.1, it has also been decided to make absolute analogous Cadre as in CHS. Thus, the review respondents vide its Letter dated 19.02.2021 noticed the decision of Competent Authority and notified new nomenclature of the 04 Posts for Pharmacist Cadre, namely, Pharmacist (Entry Cadre), Senior Pharmacist (NFG), Pharmacy Officer (NFG) and Senior Pharmacy Officer (NFG) i.e. Level 5; Level 6, Level 7 and Level 8 respectively. The said nomenclature is in parity with CHS Institutions. The Review Applicants have neither brought the said facts on record, nor there is any challenge to the same. The said new nomenclature of the posts have been implemented by the review respondents since then.
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 23 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
5.15 Lastly, learned counsel prayed that the present Review
Application deserves to be dismissed by this Tribunal. REBUTTAL TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVIEW RESPONDENTS
6. Learned counsel for the review applicants besides reiterating the submissions as noted above and for refuting the contentions of the respondents submitted that the old cadre structure created in the year 2011 has been reintroduced and renamed as the New Cadre Structure, thereby failing to take into account the existing organisational requirement and the realities of the present day. Further, it is submitted that the old cadre structure, which has been rechristened as a new cadre structure was created in the year 2011 taking into account the existing realities of 2008, which was also the base year. However, said cadre structure is not sufficient to fulfil the organisation requirements of the present day. The Review Respondents have even not taken into consideration the guidelines of the Pharmacy Counsel of India, which was to be taken as a guiding factor for preparation of a new cadre structure and RRs as per order dated 06.05.2015 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.2151/2014. Learned counsel reiterated that the cadre structure as proposed by the respondents already existed since 2011 and the same was already placed before this Tribunal for its consideration as Annexure P-20 of the O.A, and it was only after conside1ing the said cadre as annexed in Annexure A-20 of the O.A., that this Tribunal directed respondents vide order dated 06.05.2015 to create cadre structure keeping in view the recommendations of the Pharmacy 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 24 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 Council of India (PCI) and functional requirements of ESI. This shows that this Tribunal was well conscious of the ever changing organisational requirements and the promotional expectations of the employees and, therefore, directed the review respondents to prepare a fresh cadre structure keeping in view the recommendations of the PCI and functional requirements of ESI. According to the review applicants, the aforesaid fact was right in front of this Tribunal, however, the same seems to have evaded the watchful gaze of this Tribunal. Instead of rechristening the promotional posts already exiting as of 2011, respondents should have either taken reference or adopted the cadre structures existing in the State of Uttrakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Haiyana etc, which have been created keeping in view the present day functional requirement and promotional expectations. The said fact was stated in the Original Application. However, respondents disdainfully overlooked these cadre structures and merely rechristened its already existing cadre structure, which is an affront to the present day functional requirement of ESIC and promotional expectations of the pharmacists working therein. It is also submitted that the situation since 1990 has changed drastically, where the population has skyrocketed, as a corollary patients have proliferated. Thus, there was a requirement of more doctors, which have also increased. With increase in the number of doctors, more and more pharmacist would also be needed. Therefore, in order to encourage more people to become pharmacist, more promotional avenues are required, otherwise, the service would 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 25 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 degenerate and no one would want to become a pha1macist and join ESIC, which will have adverse effect on the health sector. 6.1 Learned counsel for the review applicants, reiterated that this Tribunal while passing order dated 06.05.2015, thereby directing respondents to create cadre structure keeping in view the recommendations of the PCI and functional requirements of ESI, was well aware of the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Director General to look inter-alia into the anomalies in the para medical cadre of scheme. The Committee recommended creation of two post of Dy. Pharmacist and Chief Pharmacist, over above the post of Pharmacist and the said fact was right in front of this Tribunal and after due appreciation of the same, this Tribunal directed respondents to create cadre structure keeping in view the recommendations of the PCI and functional requirements of ESI. The aforesaid study was taken way back and, therefore, the same cannot be made applicable to the present day situation. Implementing the recommendations of an old committee's recommendations would have drastic and detrimental effects on the service and it will degenerate. This Tribunal was also of the similar view and that is why vide order dated 06.05.2015 this Tribunal directed the review respondents to create cadre structure keeping in view the recommendations of the PCI and functional requirements of ESI. The ESI pharmacist perform some of the most vital jobs, which if not performed or performed with any delay would be cataclysmic to the whole health sector. Therefore, their jobs and duties warrant that they are content with the service. If there would be no 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 26 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 adequate promotional avenue in line with the present day requirement, the service is bound to degenerate. The will to work also dies. These pharmacists inter-alia distribute drugs and dressing to the patients, maintain stock of the drugs and dressings, take steps to replenish stores so that each patient receive drugs on time etc. All jobs and the duties of the Pharmacist as at page 161 of the Review Application enumerates the importance of the Pharmacist.
6.2 So far as the preliminary objection raised by the Review Respondents, it is submitted that most of the Review Applicants herein were party to the O.A. No.2151/2014, wherein the order dated 06.05.2015 directing review respondents to create cadre structure was passed. Remaining applicants were party in another O.A., but said O.A was also on the same subject and was based on the judgment of Udiaveer Singh & Ors. Vs. DG ESIC & Ors. Apart from this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any person aggrieved by an order would have the locus to file a review petition in Union of India Vs. Naresh Kumar Badrikumar Jagad, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2573. Since, review applicants herein are all pharmacists working in the ESIC, the order sought to be reviewed has direct bearing on them and as such, they are also aggrieved by the said order and hence, have locus to seek review of the order 13.03.2020 passed in the captioned C.P. 6.4 So far as the contentions of the respondents that review applicants, who have sought review through the present RA are not amongst the Original Applicants, who had filed the CP No. 14/2016 and the present Review Applicants are testing the waters through the 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 27 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 present Review Application and trying to obtain orders for themselves under the garb of other Original Applicants in the contempt proceedings, is concerned, learned counsel for the review applicants reiterated the submissions as noted above.
6.5 Learned counsel for the review applicants in support of the present Review Application placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CONT.Cas.(CRL).) No.4/2019, titled Court on its own motion vs. RE: Mehmood Pracha Advocate decided on 30.05.2019 as also on the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in G. Bhagavat Singh vs. Manoj Joseph and others, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 490: (2018) 4 KLT 929 (FB) and submitted that the present Review Application is maintainable and this Review Application deserves to be allowed by this Tribunal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record as well as judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the review applicants.
8. Having heard and perused the material on record, we find that the following preliminary and main issues are required to be adjudicated in this case:
8.1 PRELIMINARY ISSUES
(i) Whether the present Review Application is maintainable in law under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC?
2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 28 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014
(ii) Whether the review applicants, including those admittedly who were not parties to CP No.14/2016 and OA No.2151/2014, have locus standi to maintain the present Review Application? 8.2 MAIN ISSUES
(a) Whether the order dated 13.03.2020 passed in CP No.14/2016 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review?
(b) Whether the Review Application is an attempt to re-agitate the merits of cadre restructuring, thereby converting review jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction?
(c) Whether non-acceptance of the 7-level cadre structure allegedly recommended by the Pharmacy Council of India amounts to non-compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 06.05.2015?
9. We observe that it is a settled and salutary principle of service jurisprudence that when preliminary objections touching upon the maintainability of proceedings are raised, the Court or Tribunal is duty- bound to adjudicate the same at the threshold before entering into the merits of the controversy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that issues relating to jurisdiction, locus standi, limitation, or maintainability go to the root of the matter and must be decided as preliminary issues, since any adjudication on merits without resolving such foundational objections would render the proceedings legally 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 29 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 unsustainable. In other words, where a preliminary objection strikes at the very competence of the forum or the maintainability of the lis, it is incumbent upon the Court/Tribunal to first determine, such objection in accordance with the governing statute and settled principles of law. Only upon finding that the matter is maintainable in law can the Court proceed to examine the substantive issues involved.
10. So far as preliminary objection (i) as mentioned in para 8.1 above, i.e., whether the present Review Application is maintainable in law under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, is concerned, we observe that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and circumscribed. 10.1 Before delving upon the above issue, we deem it fit to refer the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope of jurisdiction of this Tribunal to review its own Order/Judgment:-
(i) In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharmma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 389, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909], there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 30 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
(ii) In K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India, reported in 1997 (3) SCT 639, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"The right of review is not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is possible only on limited grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of these Code of Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of finality of a decision. Besides that, the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given can not monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy demands that there should been to law suits and if the view of the tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation."
(iii) In Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers' Assn. & Ors., reported in (2007) 9 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"25. The learned counsel for the State also pointed out that there was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its own judgment. Even after the microscopic examination of the judgment of the Tribunal we could not find a single reason in the whole judgment as to how the review was justified and for what reasons. No apparent error on the face of the record was pointed, nor was it discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate authority over its own judgment. This was completely impermissible and we agree with the High Court (Justice Sinha) that the Tribunal has traveled out of its jurisdiction to write a second order in the name of reviewing its own judgment. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant did not address us on this very vital aspect."
2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 31 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014
(iv) In State of W. B. Vs. Kamal Sengupta, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"28. 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 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 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."
(v) In Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2002 (4) SCT 608 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 32 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 "3.....The Tribunal could have interfered in the matter if the error pointed out, is plain and apparent. But the Tribunal proceeded to re-examine the matter as if it is an original application before it. This is not the scope of review."
(vi) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, authoritatively held that review may be exercised on discovery of new and important matter; where there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; on any analogous ground. However, it cannot be exercised merely because the decision is erroneous on merits. That is the domain of appeal.
(vii) Similarly, in Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Supreme Court clarified that an error which requires long-drawn reasoning cannot be termed an error apparent on the face of the record. Review cannot be an appeal in disguise. Further, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, it was held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. 10.2 Applying the above principles, the grounds raised by the review applicants primarily relate to alleged inadequacy of cadre structure; alleged misinterpretation of PCI recommendations; alleged factual misrepresentation; functional and policy considerations. All these grounds require detailed examination on merits and re-appreciation of evidence. They do not disclose any self-evident error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, prima facie, the Review Application does not satisfy the statutory parameters of review jurisdiction.
11. So far as preliminary objection (ii) as noted in para 8.1 above, i.e., whether the review applicants, including those admittedly who were not parties to CP No.14/2016 and OA No.2151/2014, have locus 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 33 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 standi to maintain the present Review Application, is concerned, we observe that the review respondents have raised objection regarding third-party applicants in the instant Review Application. Admittedly, some of the review applicants in the memo of parties of the instant Review Application were neither the parties in the CP No.14/2016 and the OA No.2151/2014. As a matter of settled law, a third party who was not a party to the original proceedings ordinarily cannot seek review of an order passed in contempt proceedings, unless such person establishes that he is a directly and legally aggrieved person and that the order affects his vested rights. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified the following principles:
(i) In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise. It can be entertained only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or other limited statutory grounds. Thus, even a party to the original proceedings cannot seek review unless strict parameters are satisfied, much less a stranger.
(ii) In Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 513, the Supreme Court held that finality of a judgment cannot be disturbed unless the applicant demonstrates a manifest error apparent on the face of the record. The Hon'ble Courts have consistently required that the applicant must be an aggrieved person whose legal rights are directly affected.
2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 34 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014
(iii) The governing principle is that only a person who was a party to the proceedings or whose rights were directly adjudicated may seek review. The Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar Badrikumar Jagad v. Union of India, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2573, observed that an "aggrieved person" may seek review; however, such person must show: Direct and substantial prejudice, That the order operates against him, That he had no opportunity to be heard earlier. Mere indirect or academic interest is insufficient.
(iv) Contempt jurisdiction is sui generis and limited to examining compliance of earlier directions, not re-adjudicating substantive rights. The Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, (1996) 6 SCC 291, observed that pursuant to the direction issued by the Court once an order is passed by the authority, it provides a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in appropriate forum, and the allegations that the direction has not been complied with correctly, properly and legally would not be entertained in a contempt matter since it cannot be said to be a willful violation of the order. Thus, we observe that a contempt order does not ordinarily determine new civil rights, it only decides whether there was wilful disobedience; and a third party cannot convert review of a contempt order into a fresh adjudication of service rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that review is confined to parties to the lis, a stranger cannot maintain review unless the judgment directly affects his legal rights, contempt orders have even narrower scope. Thus, we observe that where a person was neither party to the original OA nor to the Contempt Petition, and no adjudication of 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 35 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 his personal service rights was made, he cannot ordinarily maintain a Review Application against dismissal of a Contempt Petition. At best, such person may, file a substantive Original Application (if cause of action exists), or challenge administrative action independently. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.
12. So far as issue (a) as mentioned in para 8.2 above, i.e., whether the order dated 13.03.2020 passed in CP No.14/2016 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review, is concerned, we observe that this Tribunal in its order dated 13.03.2020 passed in CP No.14/2016 review of which is sought in the instant Review Application, examined the directions dated 06.05.2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2151/2014, noted that PCI recommendations were guiding, not mandatory, found substantive steps taken by ESIC and accordingly, held that contempt jurisdiction cannot examine adequacy of compliance.
12.1 Therefore, we observe that an error apparent must be self- evident; strike on mere perusal; not require elaborate argument. This principle was reiterated in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, where it was held that an error apparent must be obvious and patent. However, the grounds as raised by the review applicants in the instant RA involves whether 2011 cadre was merely renamed; whether PCI recommendations were adequately considered; whether functional requirements were reassessed; and whether Grade Pay scheme replaced cadre restructuring. All these are matters requiring appreciation of facts and 2026.03.02 RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36 +05'30' Item No.17 /C-2 36 R A No.92/2020 in CP No.14/2016 in OA No.2151/2014 interpretation, not patent errors. Hence, no error apparent on the face of record is demonstrated. Accordingly, we answer this issue by observing that the present Review Application is not maintainable, as it does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The grounds raised require re-appreciation of merits and amount to an appeal in disguise. No patent, manifest or self-evident error exists in the order dated 13.03.2020. The Tribunal examined compliance and exercised jurisdiction properly.
13. So far as issue (b) as mentioned in para 8.2 above, i.e., whether the Review Application is an attempt to re-agitate the merits of cadre restructuring, thereby converting review jurisdiction into appellate jurisdiction, is concerned, we observe that the review applicants seek reconsideration of cadre structure; evaluation of educational qualifications; grant of higher promotional avenues; determination of pay parity; re-examination of committee reports. All these issues were either considered earlier or fall within policy domain. 13.1 The Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar v. Rambai, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 513 held that finality of judgment cannot be disturbed unless an error apparent is shown. However, the present Review Application seeks substitution of the Tribunal's view on compliance. That is impermissible in review jurisdiction. As such, we answer this issue by observing that through the instant Review Application, the review applicants attempt to convert review into appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible in law.
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'
Item No.17 /C-2 37 R A No.92/2020 in
CP No.14/2016 in
OA No.2151/2014
14. So far as issue (c) as mentioned in para 8.2 above, i.e., whether non-acceptance of the 7-level cadre structure allegedly recommended by the Pharmacy Council of India amounts to non-compliance of the Tribunal's order dated 06.05.2015, is concerned, we observe that the order dated 06.05.2015 passed in OA No.2151/2014, this Tribunal directed the review respondents to formulate cadre structure; to amend RRs; to be guided by PCI recommendations; to consider organizational requirements. The word used was "guided" not "mandatorily adopt". This Tribunal in CP proceedings interpreted this correctly. The High Court in WP (C) No.8082/2016 dismissed the challenge as withdrawn upon statement of compliance. Thus, the scope of contempt was limited to examining whether steps were taken or not whether applicants were satisfied. Contempt jurisdiction cannot determine correctness or adequacy of administrative decisions. Thus, we answer this issue by observing that the directions dated 06.05.2015 required guidance from PCI recommendations but did not mandate adoption of a 7-level cadre structure. Substantial compliance having been examined in contempt proceedings, no review is warranted.
15. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we hold that the instant RA being bereft of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2026.03.02
RAVI KANOJIA13:16:36
+05'30'