Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
R.S.S. Yadav & Others Review vs Union Of India And Others on 2 July, 2017
By circulation
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Review Application No.330/00020/2014
In
Original Application No. 1377 of 2009
Allahabad this the 02nd day of July, 2014
Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J
Honble Ms. B. Bhamathi, Member-A
R.S.S. Yadav & Others Review Applicants
By Advocate: Sri Shekhar Kumar
Vs.
Union of India and others Respondents
O R D E R
Delivered by Honble Mr. Justice S.S. Tiwari, Member-J This Review Application has been filed by the Review Applicants (applicants in O.A.) against the Order dated 23.04.2014 passed by this Bench in O.A. No. 1377 of 2009 R.S.S. Yadav and others vs. Union of India and others whereby the O.A., filed by applicants, has been dismissed.
2. The O.A., above mentioned, was filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to set aside the impugned orders dated 25.08.2009 (annexure A-1, annexure A-2, annexure A-3 and annexure A-4 in Compilation No. I to the O.A.) and to issue order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give seniority and financial benefit to the applicants from the year 2002 under the ACP Scheme.
3. The main ground of Review Application is that during the arguments in Open Court on 12.02.2014, the Tribunal was of the view that the applicants have got a case and they are entitled to get second ACP from the date of completion of 24 years of their service but, by the Order, in question, O.A. has been dismissed.
4. The procedure for Review Application under the present Act has been borrowed from the Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. which provides that in the following circumstances a review of any decree or order is permissible: -
(i) Where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made; or
(ii) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or
(iii) For any other sufficient reasons. A perusal of grounds mentioned by the Review Applicants in the present Review Application reveals that there is no averment of applicants regarding any ground as regards ground No. (i) or even ground No. (ii), mentioned in the aforesaid provision. It is nowhere mentioned in the Review Application that there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of record nor is the case of applicants that some new facts have come in the knowledge of applicants or they could not produce any evidence earlier. The only ground is that while hearing the arguments in O.A., the applicants gathered the impression that the Tribunal was convinced with the arguments of learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have got a case and they may get the relief.
5. The main question for consideration in the aforesaid O.A. was as to whether the applicants are entitled for grant of financial up-gradation from the date of passing of Trade Test or from the date when they completed 24 years of regular service. Apparently, as per record the applicants could clear the Supervisory Trade Test only in second attempt and due to this fact they were not granted the second ACP benefit just after completion of 24 years of service in the year 2002. The contention of applicants regarding identical case was also discussed in the O.A. and their case was not found identical with the case of Ram Lakhan and 55 others. The issue was already discussed and settled by the Circular dated 09.11.2006 issued by the Director General, E.M.E. Accordingly, the applicants were not found entitled for grant of benefit of second ACP just after completion of 24 years of service rather they were given the benefit when they cleared the Supervisory Trade Test in second chance. In view of aforesaid facts, it is clear that the applicants want re-agitation of the matter through this Review Application which has already been finally decided by this Bench by the Order, in question. The Review Application of the applicants, in these circumstances, does not appear to be maintainable.
6. The Honble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sen Gupta 2008 (8) SCC 612 has specifically observed the grounds for maintainability of Review Application in following words: -
The term mistake or error apparent by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22 (3) (f) of the Act. To put it differently, an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. While exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.
7. In the light of above facts, circumstances and legal position, we are of the view that this Review Application is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Ms. B. Bhamathi) {Justice S.S. Tiwari}
Member-A Member J
/M.M/
4