Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Madan Mohan vs M/O Railways on 21 August, 2017
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
RA No.152/2017 in
OA No.519/2015
New Delhi this the 21st day of August, 2017
Hon'ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Union of India & others through:
1. The General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi
2. The Chief Medical Director Northern Railway Baroda House, New
Delhi
3. The Chief Medical Superintendent Northern Railway Shama
Prasad Mukherjee Marg Delhi Main, Delhi
-Review Applicants
Versus
Mr. Madan Mohan s/o late Mr. Nathu Ram Aged about 84 years r/o
30/18, Railway Colony Delhi Kishan Ganj, Delhi
-Respondent
O R D E R (By Circulation)
This Review Application (RA) has been filed under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking review of this Tribunal's order dated 23.05.2017 in OA No.519.2015. The original applicant had prayed for the following reliefs in the said OA:
"8.1 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to set-aside the impugned orders dated 22.6.2011 & 12.12.2014 with all consequential benefits.2
RA No.152/2017 in OA No.519/2015 8.2 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to make the balance payment of Rs.40907/- alongwith 18% interest per annum from 28.7.2010 till realization towards the reimbursement of his medical bill, which was illegally disallowed by them.
8.3 Cost of this Original Application be awarded in favour of the applicant and against the respondents."
2. The OA was disposed of by the Tribunal in terms of the following directions to the respondents:
11. In the result, the O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to reimburse the full medical expenses of Rs.49,407/- incurred by the applicant on the treatment of his late wife at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The amount of Rs.8500/- already paid to the applicant should be deducted from this amount Rs.49,407/-. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. The review applicants (respondents in the OA) have broadly pleaded the following grounds in support of the prayer for review/recall of the order dated 23.05.2017:
i) Medical reimbursements are to be allowed as per the Retired Employees Liberalised Health Scheme (RELHS) of the Railway Board.
ii) The applicant in the OA had not been able to establish existence of any medical emergency for taking his wife for treatment to Sir Ganga Ram hospital, a non-empanelled hospital of the Railway Board.
iii) The Chief Medical Superintendent of the Northern Railway Central Hospital (NRCH) has clearly recorded that the applicant was advised to take his wife to Dr. Rama Shankar, 3 RA No.152/2017 in OA No.519/2015 Neurologist of NRCH for opinion, but instead, on his own volition, he took her wife to Sir Ganga Ram hospital.
5. These grounds as well as other averments made by the review applicants were also argued by the respondents, who are review applicants in this RA. The Tribunal after taking into consideration all the arguments and the pleadings has passed order dated 23.05.2017. The review applicants have not pointed out any apparent error on the face of the record of the order dated 23.05.2017, which is sine qua non for seeking review.
6. On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that "the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision." At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-
"(i) The power of Tribunal to review it order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1) of 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 specific grounds 4 RA No.152/2017 in OA No.519/2015
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (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 a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court
(vii) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii) 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.
(ix) 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."
7. In view of the above, the RA is found devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed, in circulation.
(K. N. Shrivastava) Member (A) 'San.'