Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dal Chand vs M/O Defence on 12 October, 2022
1
R.A. No. 45/2021
Item No. 38
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
R.A. No. 45/2021 in
O.A. No. 2845/2014
M.A. No. 1602/2021
This the 12th Day of October, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Dal Chand Aged 46 years (Now aged about 52 Years)
S/o Late Shri Kalu Ram
Working as Fire Engine Driver-I
Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar, Distt, Ghaziabad (UP)
R/o 159/8, Bamba Road, New Defence Colony
Murad Nagar,
Distt. Ghaziabad (UP).
....Respondent in RA/Applicant in OA
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Vs.
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India
South Block, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager
Ordnance Factory, Muradnagar
Distt. Ghaziabad (UP).
...Review Applicants/Respondents in OA
(By Advocates : Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)
2
R.A. No. 45/2021
Item No. 38
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) By virtue of the present RA, the applicant seeks review of the order passed by this Tribunal on 17.09.2019 in OA No 2845/2014.
2. The review applicants who were the respondents in the aforesaid OA have narrated the entire facts and history of the case in detail. The said history also traces the career of the applicant in the OA from the date of his appointment as a Messenger Boy till date. It further narrates the different pay scales and the promotions, the applicant in the OA would have got. Thereafter, the review applicant go on to quote from the various rules and instructions. After reopening the entire history, and factual matrix of the case, they go on to state that the applicant having got promotions at the relevant point of time should not have been accorded the relief which was given to him in the OA and hence they seek the review of the said order.
3. Before dwelling further, we would like to point out that while the OA was decided on 17.09.2019, the RA was filed two years later, in the year 2021. There are no cogent reasons given as to why it took two years for the respondents (Review Applicants) to take a decision to file this RA. 3 R.A. No. 45/2021 Item No. 38
4. The applicant in the OA had sought the following reliefs :
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order 19.2.2014 (A/1) declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the Govt. of India instruction and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents not to treat the appointment of the applicant as Fireman-II on 21.1.1988 as promotion and treat the same as a direct recruitment for the purpose of granting the benefits of ACP/MACP scheme with all the consequential benefits.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to count the service of the applicant w.e.f.21.1.1988 only for the purpose of considering and granting the benefits of financial upgradations under ACP/MACP scheme and consequently, pass an order of granting the same from due date i.e. first financial upgradation w.e.f. 21.1.2000 in the scale of Rs.4000-
6000 under ACP scheme and second financial upgradation w.e.f.1.9.2008 under MACP scheme with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with interest.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
5. A bare reading of the order passed by this Tribunal indicates that neither any of the facts nor the law was discussed while deciding the case. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant also did not make any submission before the Tribunal during the course of the arguments as is borne out of the final order. The limited observation which was made by the Tribunal was on account of the learned counsel for the 4 R.A. No. 45/2021 Item No. 38 respondents presenting an order dated 19.08.2006 passed in another OA No 3547/2014 in an identical case.
6. We respect that this order was brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the learned counsel for the respondents and accordingly the OA decided. It is rather curious that they now seek review of the very order which was passed at their behest and on their insistance. The Tribunal had merely quoted from paras 11 and 12 of the order presented before it by the learned counsel for the respondents and since the counsel had mentioned that the case is identical, the Tribunal had directed that the OA is disposed of in terms of para 12 of the order brought to its notice by the learned counsel for the respondents, and accordingly directed the respondents to give the relief to the applicant in terms of the said paragraphs.
7. Against this background, we are both surprised and disappointed that for two long years, the respondents did not take any steps to comply with this order which merely required them to take a decision in accordance with the earlier judgment rendered by this Tribunal. To repeat they themselves had brought this judgment to the notice of this Tribunal for disposal of the OA. The order was passed squarely and singularly on their prayer and pleading.
5R.A. No. 45/2021 Item No. 38
8. We are constrained to note that the respondent number 2(review applicants) is an organisation of the Union of India and has chosen to take this path which is nothing more than the gross abuse of the process of law. There are absolutely no grounds for seeking this review as the respondents (review applicants) have not been able to bring out a single instance of any error of fact or departure from law in the judgment passed by this Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the RA as well as the associated MA are dismissed along with imposition of cost of Rs. 25,000/- which would be deposited by the review applicants in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund forthwith.
10. It is made clear that the said directions shall be complied with within a period of 4 weeks' from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Tarun Shridhar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NISHA/