Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Amritpal Singh Sood Son Of Shri Jarnail ... vs Union Of India Through The Secretary on 4 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
I. R.A.NO.77 OF 2011 IN
O.A. NO.139/CH/2011
Date of order: November 4, 2011.
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Khushiram, Member (A)
1. Amritpal Singh Sood son of Shri Jarnail Singh Sood,
2. Amit Kumar son of Shri Davinder Nath Dass,
3. Binod Kumar Pandey son of Shri Jai Narain Pandey,
4. Sukhdeep Singh Uppal son of Shri Jag Sharan Singh Uppal,
5. Sandeep Negi son of Shri Ravinder Negi,
6. Monika Chhabra wife of Shri Karanbir Singh Chhabra,
All working as Junior Physiotherapists in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
REVIEW APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
RESPONDENTS
II. R.A.NO.78 OF 2011 IN O.A. 160/CH/2011
1. Raghunath Sahoo son of late Shri Daitri Sahoo
2. Bibek Adhya son of late Shri Shjibapada Adhya
3. Upendra Nath Goswami son of Shri Jai Narayaan Goswami
All working as Physiotherapist in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
Review Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health), Government of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
Respondents
O R D E R
Honble Mr .Khushiram, AM:
Both these Review petitions have been filed by the applicants for review of the order dated 26.8.2011 rendered in OA Nos.139/CH/2011 & 160/CH/2011. The concluding para of the order reads as follows:-
7.Admittedly, the post of Junior Physiotherapist has been redesignated as Physiotherapist and has been granted up graded scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200/-. The respondents have also agreed to grant MACP on completion of 10/20/30 years of service from the date the scheme was issued. Since matters related to grant of pay scales and up-gradation of pay scale is concerned, it requires specialized knowledge of the different cadres and their functions, responsibilities etc. and the Courts cannot enter into the arena as they do not have the expertise of the Pay Commission. Accordingly, we are of the view that the respondents have already granted merger of the post of Junior Physiotherapist with Physiotherapist and have also re-designated them accordingly. They have also granted them suitable pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200/-, the Tribunal does not have paraphernalia to examine the grant of up-graded pay scales different from the scales recommended by the 6th Central Pay Commission which has been implemented in this case. Since the PGI is governed by an autonomous society, they are at liberty to grant the pay scales to its employees according to availability of resources or the grants received from the Government of India. Moreover, the applicants have never questioned either their induction as Junior Physiotherapist all these years nor claimed higher pay scale from the date recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission were implemented (i.e. 1.1.1995 ) nor sought parity with the Physiotherapists of AIIMS New Delhi all these years nor Pay Commission has recommended their case in particular. We are of the view that the claim of the applicants is hopelessly time barred.
9. Resultantly, both the OAs are found to be bereft of any merit and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
2. The scope of review is very limited and it has to confine to the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. An order/judgment could be reviewed on the following grounds:
i) on account of an error apparent on the face of the record;
ii) On production of any new document or material, which after due diligence could not be procure or was not at the knowledge of the party-concerned at the time when the order was made;
iii) For any other sufficient reason.
3. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Applicants have also not produced or brought to our notice any document or material, which could not be made available to the Bench at the time the order, was rendered. There is also no cause, much less sufficient cause to review the order aforesaid.
4. Accordingly, both the RAs are held to be devoid of merit and are rejected by circulation.
(KHUSHIRAM ) MEMBER(A).
(JUSTICE S.D.ANAND),
MEMBER (J)
Dated: November 14, 2011.
KKS
4
(RA 277/2011 IN OA 3263/2010)