Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Babita Roy Choudhary vs Eastern Railway on 29 October, 2025
1 r.a. 350.00036.2025 (o.a. 350.00333.2024)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. R.A. 350/00036/2025 Date of order: 29.10.2025
(O.A. 350/00333/2024)
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
BABITA ROY CHOUDHARY
........ Applicant.
- VERSUS-
EASTERN RAILWAY
....... Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr. A.K. Paul , Counsel
Ms. S.P. Chowdhuary
For the Respondents : Ms. S. Chakraborty, Counsel
ORDER
The instant Review Petition has been filed seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 05.08.2025 in O.A. No. 350/00333/2024. This Tribunal, vide order dated 05.08.2025, had dismissed the said Original Application. The operative part of the order of this Tribunal dated 05.08.2025 in the O.A. No. 350/00333/2024 is reproduced below:
"13. In the instant case, the applicant, Smt. Babita Roy Choudhary was not eligible for grant of family pension at the time her mother, who was a family pensioner had expired, since she was married at that time and the extant rules has no provisions for grant of family pension to a married daughter. Although the Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 13:36:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2 r.a. 350.00036.2025 (o.a. 350.00333.2024) applicant has claimed that she was living separately from her husband and was in receipt of maintenance allowance granted to her by the 6th Court at Alipore, the fact remains that her marriage with Debashish Roy Chaudhary was not dissolved. In terms of the Office Memorandum of the Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare dated 18th September 2014, the applicant is not entitled to grant of family pension since she became a widow only after the death of her father and mother, who were in receipt of Pension and family pension, respectively during their lifetime. Further, in terms of the Ratio of the Judgement dated 07.02.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WCPCT 65 of 2017, an extract which has been quoted in the preceding paragraph, the applicant is not entitled to grant of family pension.
14. In view the above discussion, I am of the opinion that this Original Application lacks merit. The OA is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost."
2. The applicant this Review Petition has submitted the following grounds for review of the above orders:
"(i) Heard in the above OA held on 25.6.25 Regarding Dependence of the applicant with her father and mother from 2011 base on Civil Case with her husband namely Debasis Roy vide Judicial Magistrate 6th Court/Alipure Under Section 125 of the CRPC & Section 156(3) but during Period from 2911 to till date of death of Late Debasis Roy not a single amount Paid as Per order of Court and letter on death.
Hence it is admitted during the hearing both side, agreed and decision taken by Ld. Tribunal a Enquiry to be held by Dept. for status of the dependency and reserved for Judgment, but after Judgment Passed on 5.8.25, dismissed, which effect the Art-21 and justice denied. Hence matter is Review. On the Ground of Dependency of the applicant as admitted both side, during hearing, As since the Dept Not inquire the. applicant letter dated 20.8.22 in OA/Annexure A-6 not decided.
(ii) That WPCT/65 of 2017. There is separate Issue Ex- Gratia Demand in Relief sought, Hence said Judgment not maintainable in this Case..
(iii) That eligibility of Dependency applicant since 2011, maintain her Parent, not a single amount Paid by Debasis Roy, till her life time, even after death of Debasis Roy. The Railway Circular Concept of Family Pension, Dependence of the Parent during Pensioner life time, and not more then 9000/- Per month Income from Sources Scope of Family Pension extension by Director/Rly Board dated 8.9.2007. So Question of the Income of the eligibility. In this case applicant dependent till life time of Pensioner and on date. No Relation between Babita Roy Choudhry & Debasis Roy. This has been certified by Chairman Municipally of the area.
2. For that it appears from the Record as well as Pleading/Evidence and minute both side hearing in the Open court. Dept. Inquiry is require for dependency & Earning Capacity of the applicant for further action on the that the Scope of Family Pension extension by Director /Rly Board dated 8.9.2007 Hence the Order is liable to be Review to end of Justice by the applicant/Petitioner.
Digitally signed by DhanuRam HansdaDhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 13:36:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
3 r.a. 350.00036.2025 (o.a. 350.00333.2024) Certified That the Grounds as stated above are all good Grounds for review of the Order dated. 5.8.25, passed by this Hon'ble Court, and passed and appropriate order. As your lordship may deem fit and proper..
And for this act of kindness, your petitioner as in duty bound "
3. After perusal of the review petition, I am of the opinion that all the grounds put forward by the Petitioner in the instant petition, have already been considered by the Tribunal before passing its order dated 05.08.2025 in O.A. No. 350/00333/2024.
4. The review petition has also filed to establish:
(a) That there are any errors or mistakes apparent on the face of record.
(b)That new or important matters that were not within his knowledge/possession was subsequently furnished in this review application, and,
(c) Has not advanced in any other sufficient reason in the light of other specified grounds.
5. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides for, review of an order passed by a Court/Tribunal. The same is reproduced below:
"Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from 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 decree 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, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 13:36:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 r.a. 350.00036.2025 (o.a. 350.00333.2024) Review of an order passed by this Tribunal is accordingly maintainable on the following grounds:
i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him
ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
iii) iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The Tribunal's power to review its own order the above grounds has been well recognised by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Gopal Singh vs. State Cadre Forest Officers' Assn, and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 369].
The Hon'ble Apex Court in AribamTuleshwar Sharma v. AribamPishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389=AIR 1979 SC 1047 has held that:
"there are definite limits to the exercise of the power of review and, in particular, that the power of review 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 powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court"
In Parsion Devi &OrsvsSumitri Devi &Ors (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"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 limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
In the State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as follows:
"where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment."
The principles derived from the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court are summed up as follows:-
Digitally signed by DhanuRam HansdaDhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 13:36:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 r.a. 350.00036.2025 (o.a. 350.00333.2024)
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3) () of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 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."
6. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for reviewing the order of this Tribunal dated 05.08.2025 in O.A. No. 350/00333/2024 and that this Review Petition cannot be entertained. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Anindo Majumdar) Administrative Member drh Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.11.03 13:36:31+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0