Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
R. Shyamala vs Union Of India on 9 May, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
RA No. 208/2013 with MA No.3279/2013, MA No. 3280/2013, MA No. 3281/2013, MA No.3282/2013 and MA No.1224/2014
In
OA No. 2145/2009
Reserved on: 05.05.2014
Pronounced on: 09.05.2014
Honble Shri G George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Member(A)
1. R. Shyamala
Joint Director TT-II,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. P.D. Jacob
Joint Director/RS(B)
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. P.K. Vaid
Joint Director/GS/AIRF,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi. .Review Applicants
By Advocate: Shri M.S. Saini.
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Through Secretary, UPSC,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi. ..Official Respondents in RA
1. Sh. Ram Shankar Shukla
2. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sinha
3. Sh. Sunil Bhardwaj
4. Sh. Vidya Dhar Sharma
5. Sh. Bibekananda Rath
6. Sh. Rajesh Kumar
7. Sh. Parveen Kumar
8. Sh. Harish Chander
9. Sh. Sayed Hasan
10. Sh. R.K. Bhandari
11. Sh. Subrata Banerjee
12. Sh. Sanjay Gauri
13. Sh. Devasia Joseph
14. Sh. Sanjay Manocha
15. Sh. Nirbhay Pratap Singh
16. Sh. Umesh Kumar Tiwari Private Respondents in
RA/Original Applicants in OA
By Advocate : Ms. Bhaswati Anukama , Shri Krishan Kumar
and Shri Rajinder Khatter, Counsel for the official Respondents.
Sh. C. Hari Shankar for Private Respondents in the RA with Shri S. Sunil and P.K. Singh
O R D E R
By Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) MA No. 3279/2013 This Miscellaneous Application has been filed in RA No.208/2013 seeking stay of the order dated 11.10.2013 passed in OA No. 2145/2009.
MA No. 3280/20132. This MA has been filed for granting oral hearing in the RA No.208/2013.
MA No. 3281/20133. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Miscellaneous Applicants for impleadment of them as Respondents in OA No. 2145/2009.
MA No. 3282/2013 in R.A. No.208/2013
4. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed in RA No.208/2013 seeking direction to summon official records pertaining to the subject matter.
MA No.1224/2014 in RA No.208/2013
5. This MA has been filed seeking an order to stay the operation of the order of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2013 pass in OA No.2145/2009 till the disposal of the Review Application.
RA No.208/2013 in OA No. 2145/2009
6. This Review Application bearing No.208/2013 has been filed by the Applicants seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2013 in OA No.2145/2009. One of them Shri P.K. Vaid was Respondent No.15 in the said OA. Other two, namely, R. Shyamla and Shri P.D. Jacob were not parties. This Tribunal allowed the aforesaid order dated 11.10.2013 having its operative part as under:-
15. We have reconsidered the aforesaid issues untrammeled by the earlier observations/findings of coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. In our considered view, without carrying out the necessary amendments in the RBSSS Rules, 1971, the executive instructions to that effect will only remain as executive instructions and it will not partake the character of statutory rules. By the executive order dated 18.06.1991, the Respondent-Railways has only revised existing four designations of some of the grades RBSSS w.e.f. 15.05.1991. Thus, the existing designation of Private Secretary in the scale of pay of Rs.3000-4500 has been changed to Principal Private Secretary. As regards grade A and grade B Stenographers are concerned, their pre-revised pay scales of Rs.650-1200 and Rs.650-1040 were merged in the new pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and their designation was changed from Senior Personnel Assistant to Private Secretary. Other two grades, namely, Grade C and Grade D remained unchanged. Earlier finding of this Tribunal was that with the aforesaid merger of grade A and grade B by way of Executive Order, on completion of eight years service in the merged scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986, they became eligible for inclusion in the zone of consideration for promotion to Grade-I of RBSSS. This Tribunal has also noted that same practice was being followed in earlier promotions also. However, law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. Vyas Muni Mishra and Ors. 1987 (Supp.) SCC 257 is different. In the said judgment the Apex Court held that while merger or bifurcation of a cadre is an executive act, the Govt. has to take steps for framing proper rules. Again, when the conditions of service are changed, the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution would be attracted and accordingly necessary rules have to be framed, as held by the Apex Court in S.P. Shiv Prasad Pipal Vs. Union of India and Ors. 1998 (4) SCC 598. Thus, the power of the Govt. to merge or demerge various posts/cadres, can be exercised only through appropriate rules. In R.N. Nanjundappa Vs. T. Thimmaiah and Another 1972(1) SCC 409, the Apex Court held that the method of recruitment and qualifications for each State Civil Service was to be set forth in the rules of recruitment of such service specifically made in that behalf. Admittedly, vide order dated 18.06.1991, the Respondent-Railway has only merged two scales attached to the grade A and grade B Stenographers to a common scale and redesignated those posts with the nomenclature as Private Secretary. But no consequential amendments in the RBSSS Rules have never taken place. In the absence of any such amendment, as stated earlier, the merger of the said posts cannot bring out any automatic change in the method of recruitment of Grade-I officers having its own separate and specific Recruitment Rules.
16. We have also seen that contention of the Official Respondents that the PSs in the RBSSS were granted exemption under Rule 8 (3) of the RBSS Rules was fallacious. Their statement that the PSs have fulfilled the condition prescribed in the said rule that they should have worked as Section Officer for one year or in the absence of such work, it was certified that they could not be posted as SOs due to contingency of work was also wrong. In fact, the Tribunal had gone by the note of the Secretary, Railway Board that there was nothing fictitious about the real problem of the administration and it was due to the administrative compulsion that it was not possible to appoint the PSs as SOs for one year. But the actual facts revealed in the reply to the information sought under the RTI Act were different. In fact, the official records show that there was no such exigencies of service by reason whereof the PSs in the RBSSS could not be posted as SOs in the RBSS and no exceptions had been granted to the PSs in their individual capacity. Therefore, PSs in the RBSSS could not have been included in the zone of consideration for Under Secretary/Deputy Secretary in the RBSS.
17. In the above background of the case, we are constrained to observe that the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 22.01.2010 was not based on the actual facts in the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the relevant issues. We, therefore, allow this OA and quash and set aside the circular No.ERB-1/2005/14/28 dated 09.07.2007 so far as it includes officers holding the post of PS in the RBSSS in the zone of consideration for appointment to Grade-I (Under Secretary/Deputy Director) in the RBSS. Consequently, appointment of the respondent No.4 to 22 or other similarly placed PSs in the RBSS as grade-I (US/DD) made pursuant to the aforesaid circular are also quashed and set aside.
18. The respondents 1 to 3 shall pass appropriate orders in compliance of the aforesaid directions within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. According to the Review Applicants, it escaped the attention of this Tribunal that the OA itself was not maintainable primarily on account of not arraying the Review Applicants who were necessary parties. They have further submitted that they were neither aware of any court proceedings of the present OA nor they were aware of the verdict given by this Tribunal. However, when they came to know about the aforesaid order, they applied for a certified copy of the said order on 08.11.2013 and they received it on 12.11.2013 and this Review Application has been filed on 28.11.2013.
8. Further, they have submitted that the aforesaid order of this Tribunal has seriously jeopardized their interest. There is also error apparent on the face of the record as this Tribunal has been erroneously guided by the sections note dated 30.07.2007 in deciding the two issues raised by the Honble High Court in its order dated 01.09.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.3280/2010. The observation made by the High Court in para 20 of the aforesaid order as extracted by the Review Applicants is as under:-
20. The Tribunal has returned a finding in favour of the private respondents and we find that in so doing, the Tribunal has ignored a plethora documents and especially the office note dated 30.7.2007 which the petitioners obtained through an RTI query which shows that the office was aware that as a ritual it was being treated that Stenographers were not being posted as Section Officers and was being so recorded.
9. The further submission of the Review Applicants is that there is conflict of interest between two classes and groups, namely, SOs of RBSS and PSs of RBSSS and the Note dated 30.07.2007 clearly displays the bias and prejudice against the PS category. However, this Tribunal omitted to note the aforesaid vital contradiction as in sections note obtained under RTI filed along with OA, vested interest of one group stating therein contradictory/partial statements intended to cause confusion and doubts about the eligibility of the PSs to Grade-I of RBSS (US/DD). They have also submitted that the bias is writ large in the sections and JS (G)s note as submitted to the competent authority. On the other hand, the RBSS Rules provide for determining the eligibility of two classes, namely, Section Officers Grade as well as Grade A of RBSSS. The Review Applicants have also submitted that another vital fact escaped the attention of this Tribunal is that in the sections note which says that such statements were related to their (Group B of RBSSSs) permanent appointment as SO for one year which stood abolished after 1971 Rules and hence the proviso to Rule 8(3) became redundant. Thus, there is error of fact and law as the vague statement made at the level of the section is contrary to the correct interpretation and the spirit of the rules.
10. They have submitted that the interpretation of the Rule by this Tribunal was wrong and it was in violation of the fundamental rights. According to them, the interpretation of Rule 6, 9(3), 8(3) and proviso to Rule 8(3) of RBSS Rules as noted in the sections note is wrong and suggestive. But in view of the fact that the Stenographers quota for permanent appointment of Steno Grade B to Section Officers Grade stood abolished since coming into force of 1971 RBSS Rules. Therefore, Rule 9(3) has no application in the present case. Proviso to Rule 6 refers to posting to duty posts. Thus, the linkage of the condition of appointment for a minimum period of one year under proviso to Rule 6 with the permanent appointment to the post of SO against Stenographers quota under Rule 9(3) as referred to in sections note is nothing but an attempt to misguide this Tribunal.
11. Further, they have submitted that the aforesaid order of this Tribunal has practically resulted in grave injustice done to them due to the fault of the administration for not having taken urgent steps to amend the rules and its promulgation as per policy decision dated 18.06.1991. In this regard, they have relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee and Others Vs. U.O.I. & Others 1991 Supp.(2) SCC 363 wherein it has been held that beneficial rule or order should not be so construed as to result in hardship to employee when he is not at fault..The mistake or delay on the part of the department, therefore, should not be permitted to recoil on the appellants.
12. Further, according to them, this Tribunal did not appreciate the fact that the provisions of Rule as contained in proviso to Rule 8(3) stood complied with once the competent authority (Member Staff) in the Ministry certified that these PSs could not be posted as SO due to administrative exigencies. Secretary, Railway Boards note dated 14.08.2007 expressly proclaims that sections note betrays a pronounced bias in favour of one group. Further, according to them, the vital facts were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal that while no options were obtained by the administration from the PSs to work as Section Officer as per the provisions of the rules, even the willing PSs who specifically applied as such, were not posted as SO which could happen only due to administrative exigencies. However, despite the applications/representations given by the PSs they were not posted as SOs. This clearly supports the contention that there was actually administrative exigency and it was not a ritual as presented in sections note before the Tribunal. The argument that the certificate of exigency had not been issued in each individual case, the certificate having been issued by the competent authority fully complies with the provisions of proviso to Rule 8(3).
13. The Review Applicants have also filed an additional affidavit enclosing therewith copy of the Chapter 9 of the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report Part-I, copy of the Notification dated 30.12.2004, copy of the judgment in the matter of State of Mizoram Vs. M.E.S. Association 2004 (5) SCALE 629, copy of order dated 09.03.2005 in respect of SOs of RBSS and order dated 17.02.2006 in respect of PSs Grade A and B merged, copy of order dated 21.02.2006 and select list of PSs of 1992. They have also stated that IVth Pay Commission recommended merger of Grades A & B of the CSSS and RBSSS and other similar services of Central Government so as to bring parity with CSS upto the level of Section Officers. The Posts of erstwhile PSs to Secretary to the Govt. of India were recommended to be upgraded and placed in the grade of Under Secretary/Deputy Director. With the merger of Grade A & B of CSSS and RBSSS, there remained only 3 Regular grades (Grade D) Steno, Grade C (PA) and PS (Gr. A & B merged). The policy mandate was accordingly issued by the Railway Board on 18-06-1991 based on the DOPT decision in the light of discussions held with Departmental Council (JCM). Thereafter, the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) amended the RBSS Rules vide notification dated 30 December, 2004 wherein in sub-rule (3) of Rule 8, the factum of merger has been specifically mentioned as under:
for sub-rule (3), the following sub rule shall be substituted namely:-
(3) Vacancies in grade I shall be filled up by promotion of regular Section Officers who have rendered not less than eight years approved service in that grade and of regular officers of Grade A and B (merged) of the Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service who have rendered not less than eight years approved service in that grade and are included in the Select List for Grade I of the service prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (5).
14. Again, they have submitted that the fallacy for allegedly interpreting Grade B of the RBSSS as distinct grade now has been attributed to the non-amendment of the existing RRs despite there being a policy mandate issued vide O.M of 18-06-1991 by which Grade B & A stood merged as per the recommendations of 4th Central Pay Commission accepted by Govt. of India. It is humbly submitted that it was the responsibility of the administration to frame/amend the RRs. For failure of the Government to amend the RRs as per the policy mandate, the Review applicants cannot be made to suffer as similarly held by the Apex Court in the case of State of Mizoram Vs. M.E.S Association 2004(5) SCALE 629, (2004) 6 SCC 218. They have also stated that presently there are a number of posts in the Railway Board to which appointments are being effected regularly but there has been no amendment made to the Recruitment Rules pertaining to these posts. For example, there are no Recruitment Rules for the posts of Director, Executive Director/Joint Secretary (SAG), Adviser (HAG) grades of RBSS. Even though promotions are being made by the Respondents in the several upgraded grades of RBSSS such as Principal Staff Officer (PSO), Sr. PPS no Recruitment Rules have been framed till date. Thus, any adverse action against the Review Applicants caused on account of default on the part of the administration for failure to amend the Recruitment Rules would be discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
15. They have further submitted that the order dated 21st February, 2006 issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) wherein the Respondents after due consideration of the recommendations made by the Committee on Restructuring of Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service discontinued lateral entry of officers of the RBSSS at the level of Under Secretary/Deputy Director of RBSS. The Review Applicants pertain to the select list year 2004-05 prior to the discontinuance of the lateral entry. The erstwhile feeder grade viz. Grade B to the erstwhile promotional Grade A of RBSSS got eliminated and does not exist with the merger of A & B grades. The Review Applicants were promoted in the merged grade (Gr. A & B merged) in the year 1992 as Private Secretaries and had rendered more than 8 years approved service in Grade A of RBSSS for appointment to the post of Grade I (US/DD) by reckoning their total service in merged grade (A&B). The Review Applicants were promoted against regular vacancies as US/DD and have got further promotions as Joint Director/Dy. Secretary against regular vacancies. Any adverse action at this stage would cause major implications.
16. The Private Respondents (Original Applicants in OA) have filed their reply stating that the present Review Application is a blatant abuse of the process of law and it has been filed by suppression, concealment and misstatement of the vital facts and material. In this regard the Respondents have pointed out to the submission made by the Review Applicants in the RA to the effect that they were neither aware of any court proceedings of the present OA nor were they aware of the verdict given by the Tribunal, and now having come to know about the aforesaid order, they applied for a certified copy on 08.11.2013. They have stated that the aforesaid averments of the Review Applicants are false and mischievous and they have been made so as not to dispute the maintainability of this Review Application. They have made entirely false statement that they were not aware of the proceedings in this OA. In this regard they have referred to the following documents:-
(i) Office Order No.78/2010 dated 28.12.2010 ( a copy whereof was endorsed to all the concerned officers including the Review Applicants) approving, inter alia, the Review Applicants (whose names figure at Sl.No.48, 52 and 57 thereof) for inclusion in the Select List for Grade-I of RBSS for the year 2004-05 expressly clarifying that the said order was subject to the outcome of OA No.2145/2009 Shri R.K. Shukla Vs. UOI& Others.
(ii) Memorandum No.ERB-I/2005/14/28 dated 29.12.2010 filed by the Review Applicants themselves with the RA which is made expressly subject to the Office Order dated 28.12.2010 (supra).
(iii) Office Order 24/2011, dated 29.06.2011 (endorsed to the concerned officers, including the present Review Applicants), which promotes the Applicants (whose names figure at SlNo.48, 52 & 57 of the 2004-05 panel in the said Office Order) to Grade-I of the Railway Board Secretariat Service (RBSS), specifically stating that the aforesaid orders are subject to the outcome of the OA 2145/2009 (supra).
(iv) PO No.26/2011 dated 19.08.2011, issued (and endorsed to all concerned including Review Applicants) by the Railway Board posting the Applicants as Deputy Director (DD) and again making the said posting subject to the outcome of OA No.2145/2009 (supra) pending before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal.
(v) PO No.46 of 2012 dated 16.08.2012, promoting, inter alia, the Review Applicants to the Selection Grade of RBSS and posting them accordingly, again, subject to the outcome of OA No.2145/2009 (supra) pending before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal.
17. They have also stated that the Review Applicant No.3 Shri P.K. Vaid has already been arrayed as Respondent No.15 in the OA and, therefore, he has already been a party in the original proceedings throughout. He, therefore, cannot claim ignorance of the proceedings and the attempt to club with Review Applicants No.1 & 2 is necessarily regarded as mischievous and intended to mislead this Tribunal. They have also submitted that the Review Applicants No.1 and 2 are fence-sitters who did not join the proceedings but merely watched the same to take their chance in case of any adverse decision, as has been the outcome of the present case. Such a practice has repeatedly been deprecated and has no place in civilized system of law. They have also refuted the submissions made by the Review Applicants.
18. The Respondent No.1 has also filed a reply in this case stating that the averments made by the Review Applicants are matters of record.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the Review Applicants Shri M.S. Saini, the learned counsel for the official Respondents Ms. Bhaswati Anukama, Shri Krishan Kumar and Shri Rajinder Khatter and the learned counsel for the Private Respondents Sh. C. Hari Shankar for Private Respondents in the RA with Shri S. Sunil and P.K. Singh. In our considered view, this RA is nothing but abuse of the process of procedure of this Tribunal. It is seen that the order of this Tribunal was pronounced way back on 11.10.2013 and this RA was filed on 28.11.2013. Obviously, it was not within the time limit of 30 days prescribed under the Rules. Under Rule 17 (i) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed. However, to justify their delay in filing this RA, the Review Applicants have resorted to making absolute false statements in this RA. Their contentions that they were not aware of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal were absolutely false and mischievous. The Respondents (Applicants in OA) have annexed copies of various orders issued by the official respondents in which the pendency of the OA was indicated and communicated to all concerned including the Review Applicants. They have, therefore, come to this Tribunal not with clean hands. Therefore, for making such false statements alone, this RA has to be dismissed. Secondly, it is seen that the Review Applicants have adopted an innovative way in filing this RA. Two of the Review Applicants were not parties in the OA whereas the third Applicant Shri P.K. Vaid was one of the respondent (Respondent No.15 in the OA). Even then they have made the false statement in the RA that they were not aware of the proceedings in the OA as well as the order passed therein. Shri P.K. Vaid not only not disclosed the aforesaid fact but also filed false affidavit in a blatant manner saying that he was not aware of the order of this Tribunal dated 11.10.2013 sought to be reviewed. Thirdly, we find no merit in the Review Application. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record as claimed by the Review Applicants even though they have repeatedly stated so in this RA. In fact, whatever the Private Respondents have stated in the OA are being restated by the Review Applicants in the present RA. In other words, the Review Applicants are trying to reargue the whole case again.
20. As held by the Apex Court in K.Ajit Babu and Others Vs. Union of India & Others 1997 (6) SCC 473, the right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on the restricted ground mentioned in the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the aforesaid period of limitation. According to the said provisions, a review will lie only when there is discovery of any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by the Review Applicants seeking review at the time when the order was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. In the present case, we do not find any such eventualities to review the aforesaid order dated 11.10.2013. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
4. As stated earlier, the appellant has challenged the impugned seniority list prepared on the basis of the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Transfer Application No. 263 of 1986 dated 14-8-1987, by means of an application under S. 19 of the Act wherein there was no prayer for setting aside the judgment dated 14-8-1987 of the Administrative Tribunal. It is true that the judgment given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in T.A. No. 263/86 would have come in the way of the appellant. Often in service matters the judgments rendered either by the Tribunal or by the Court also affect other persons, who are not parties to the cases. It may help one class of employees and at the same time adversely affect another class of employees. In such circumstances the judgments of the Courts or the Tribunals may not be strictly judgments in personam affecting only to the parties to the cases, they would be judgments in rem. In such a situation, the question arises; what remedy is available to such affected persons who are not parties to a case, yet the decision in such a case adversely affect to their rights in the matter of their seniority. In the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal that the only remedy available to the affected persons is to file a review of the judgment which affects them and not to file a fresh application under S. 19 of the Act. Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure and Rules) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Ordinarily, right of review is available only to those who are party to a case. However, even if we give wider meaning to the expression "a person feeling aggrieved" occurring in S. 22 of the Act whether such person aggrieved can seek review by opening the whole case decided by the Tribunal. 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 the Code of Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking the O. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the Tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to be 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 cannot monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy demands that there should be end 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 O. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation.
21. The Apex Court again in its judgment in the case of Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others [1997 (8) SCC 715], has held as under:-
"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". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."
22. In Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa (1999 (9) SCC 596), also the Apex Court has reiterated that power of review vested in the Tribunal is similar to the one conferred upon a Civil Court and held:-
The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. 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. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.
23. In view of the above position, we do not find any merit in this RA. It is also barred by limitation. Therefore, this RA is dismissed both on the ground of limitation and merit. As this RA has since been dismissed after hearing the parties in detail, MA Nos. 3279/2013 and MA No.3280/2013 have become infructuous and it is dismissed accordingly. MA No.3281/2013 for the impleadment of the Review Applicants, MA No.3282/2013 to summon official records and MA No. 1224/2014 seeking staying of the order of the Tribunal dated 11.10.2013 are also dismissed.
24. Even though this is a case in which heavy cost is to be imposed for making false statements and suppressing facts, we refrain from doing so. Accordingly, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SHEKHAR AGARWAL) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Rakesh