Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Unknown vs Union Of India And Others Through on 15 May, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
R.A.NO.110 OF 2015
(In O.A.NO. 2576 OF 2013)
New Delhi, this the 15th May, 2015
CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
&
HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBMER
.
Balram,
Aged about 53 years,
s/o late Sh.Babu Lal,
R/o House NO.607, Sarojini Nagar,
Delhi ` Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Anand)
Vs.
Union of India and others through
1. The Secretary,
Government of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Printing,
Government of India Press,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
3. The General Manager,
Government of India Press,
Minto Road,
New Delhi. Respondents.
ORDER
(By Circulation)
Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
The review applicant was applicant in OA No.2576 of 2013. The present review application is filed by him under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with Section 22(3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 4.3.2015 passed by the Tribunal dismissing O.A.No.2576 of 2013 as being devoid of merit.
2. The Honble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & others, 2013(8) SCC 320, has laid down the following contours with regard to maintainability, or otherwise, of review petition:
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1 When the review will be maintainable:
i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words any other sufficient reason have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 122) and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526) to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (23013(8) SCC 337).
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:
i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.
3. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the claim of the review applicant and find out whether a case has been made out by him for reviewing the order dated 4.3.2015 passed in OA No.2576 of 2013.
4. In support of his claim for reviewing the order dated 4.3.2015 ibid, the review applicant has submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously come to the conclusions that the Grade Pay of the Lino Operator is Rs.2400/- or Rs.2800/-; that the surplus Lino Operators could be absorbed/redeployed not only in the post of DTP Operator but also in the post of Offset Machine Man/Assistant; and that both the posts of DTP Operator and Offset Machine Man carry the Grade Pay of Rs.2800/-. The applicant has filed copies of the order dated 1.10.2010 granting him financial upgradation in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 1.9.2008 under the MACP Scheme, the Attendance-sheet showing his attendance as Lino Operator during 2008, and advertisements issued by the Government of India Press indicating that the post of Offset Machine Assistant carries the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/-. It is pertinent to mention here that copy of the order appointing him to the post of Lino Operator has not been filed by the applicant either with the O.A. or with R.A. Admittedly, he was granted 1st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 (corresponding to the 6th CPC Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-) with effect from 9.8.1999. The statement of the applicant made in the R.A. that the post of Lino Operator carries the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- is belied by the fact that he is presently receiving the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- on being granted 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 1.9.2008, as per Annexure RA-2. Had the post of Lino Operator carried the pre-revised pay scale corresponding to Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-, the applicant would not have been placed in the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- on being granted 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 1.9.2008 after completion of 20 years of service in the grade of Lino Operator. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the post of Lino Operator carries the Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- is untenable. The applicants further contention on the basis of the advertisements, copies of which are filed along with the R.A., that the post of Offset Machine Assistant carries the Grade Pay of Rs.2400/- is beside the point because by the order dated 13.6.2013 impugned in the O.A. he was redeployed as Offset Machine Assistant in the Grade Pay of Rs.2800/- and, in view of the stipulation contained in the said order that no pay fixation would be admissible in his case, he would certainly continue to get the same pay and allowance on the basis of Grade Pay of Rs.4600/-, which was granted to him by way of 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme with effect from 1.9.2008. A perusal of the order dated 4.3.2015 ibid, which is sought to be reviewed, reveals that the Tribunal, after considering the relevant pleadings together with the materials available on record and the rival submissions of the parties, has dismissed the O.A. In the review application, the review applicant has more or less repeated his old arguments which have been overruled by the Tribunal, vide order dated 4.3.2015 ibid. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. The appreciation of evidence on record being fully within the domain of the appellate court, cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. In a review petition, it is not open to the Tribunal to re-appreciate the evidence/materials and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence/materials and contentions of the parties, which were available on record, cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. The review applicant has not shown any material error, manifest on the face of the order dated 4.3.2015 ibid, which undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by this Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. The scope of review is very limited. It is not permissible for the Tribunal to act as an appellate court. In the above view of the matter, we hold that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for reviewing the order dated 4.3.2015 ibid.
5. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed at the stage of circulation.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN