Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Raminder Kaur vs M/O Defence on 13 March, 2019
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
1
(RA No.060/00011/2019)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
...
R.A.NO.060/00011/2019
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION N0.060/00675/2018
Chandigarh, this the 13th day of March, 2019
...
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A)
...
1. Raminder Kaur d/o late Sh. Gurdial Singh, A/c No. 8335164, age 46
years, Senior Translator, Hindi Cell, office of Principal Controller of
Defence Accounts (Western Command), Sector 9, Chandigarh-
160009 (Group-B).
2. Manbhar Jyoti d/o Sh. Om Parkash Sharma A/c No. 8334556, age 42
years, Junior Translator, Hindi Cell, office of Principal Controller of
Defence Accounts (Western Command) Sector 9, Chandigarh-160009
(Group-B).
...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry
of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Controller of General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi-110010.
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Western Command), Sector
9, Chandigarh 160009.
...RESPONDENTS
2
(RA No.060/00011/2019)
ORDER (By circulation)
SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
1. The claim of the applicants in the Original Application for grant of pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, at par with Hindi Translators, was allowed, on the basis of decision in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond, SLP © No.17419 of 2009 decided on 25.7.2013, vide order dated 17.1.2019. However, the Court restricted the grant of arrears to them, prior to 18 months from the date of filing of the O.A.
2. Now the applicants have filed this R.A. on the ground that they should also be granted arrears as was granted to their colleagues in other cases.
3. The M.A.No.060/000474/2019 is allowed and minor delay of 13 days in filing the R.A. is condoned.
4. A perusal of the order under review leaves no manner of doubt that the court has declined to grant arrears by restricting it to 18 months prior to the date of filing of the O.A. which obviously was relatable to the delay caused by the applicants in lodging their claim. In view of this, we do not find any ground made out to review our order dated 17.1.2019.
5. It is now well settled principle of law that the scope for review is rather limited, and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an Appellate Authority, in respect of the original order by a fresh and re-hearing of the matter, to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The reliance in this regard can be placed on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in case of GOPAL SINGH VS. STATE CADRE FOREST OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION & OTHERS (2007) 9 SCC 369. 3
(RA No.060/00011/2019)
6. Meaning thereby, an order can only be reviewed if case strictly falls within the pointed domain of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and not otherwise, which is not available in the case in hand. The applicant in R.A has neither pleaded nor urged any error on the face of record warranting review of the order in question, except re- arguing the case all over again and raising speculative grounds which is not permissible.
7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, the RA is dismissed, by circulation.
(P. GOPINATH) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Dated: 13.03.2019 HC*