Coir Board vs P.G. Alice Miland

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—We have heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Coir Board, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

This writ appeal is against an order passed by the learned single Judge in an application for review of the judgment issued in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While delivering judgment dated 10.02.2009 in the writ petition, the learned single Judge had held that the writ petitioners were entitled to notional fixation and benefit of increment etc., so that they will get the benefit due by way of fixation from 01.01.2008. Considering the application for review, the learned single Judge concluded that in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment in the writ petition, it was held that the petitioners can be granted fixation with effect from 01.01.1996 and the relief was issued in the manner it was done only because of the plea of the petitioners claiming the benefit of fixation from 19.03.1999. Those directions were issued in the judgment in the writ petition in the light of the averments in paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit. Considering the application for review, the learned single Judge has held that the specific points raised in paragraph Nos. 14 & 15 of the review petition have not been answered by the establishment in its counter affidavit directly, and the crucial issues are whether other similarly placed employees were granted the benefit from 1996 and whether the review petitioners have been denied such benefits. Even during the course of the submissions in relation to the review petition, the establishment had submitted that other employees were disbursed the benefits in the light of various directions issued in the judgments concerning them from 01.01.1996. It was thereafter that the learned single Judge ordered review of the judgment modifying paragraph No. 7 of the judgment issued in the writ petition. The net effect of the order of review was that the three petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the revised scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 for the periods from 19.03.1996 to 20.01.2006, 18.03.1996 to 20.01.2006 and 03.04.1996 to 20.01.2006 respectively. The establishment was directed to issue appropriate modified orders. Though the learned Senior counsel for the establishment has argued that the distinction between All India seniority and station seniority has not been adverted to by the learned single Judge in the course of review, we do not see that such a point was put for consideration before the learned single Judge. Even the counter affidavit filed by the establishment before the learned single Judge in answer to the review petition does not contain any specific ground or defence set on the distinction between All India seniority and station seniority. The order issued by the learned single Judge in the application for review cannot be criticized because it has been granted holding that there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed. In this appeal which is against the order in the review petition, we cannot overstep and re-open, for consideration, the judgment issued in the writ petition. There is no appeal against that judgment as such.

For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.