Ishwar Dass vs Union Of India, Through

Aradhana Johri, Member (A)

The review applicant has sought review of the Tribunal's order dated 25.09.2018 by which OA No.1853/2014 was dismissed.

The sole ground taken by the review applicant is that there is an error apparent on the face of record, as the Tribunal at page no.6 of the order has erred in arriving at a finding that 'Further, it is clear that w.e.f. 03.02.2004, the scales of Inspector of Accounts and Senior Administrative Officers have been revised to Rs.7500-12000/- and pay fixation done accordingly. Therefore, cause of action in this matter does not subsist". The review applicant further submitted that he has not been given the benefit of fixation by the respondents, which, he asserts, is clearly evident from para 6 of the additional reply filed by them consequent to the order of this Tribunal dated 02.08.2016 and, therefore, cause of action on this issue still subsists.

We have gone through para no.6 of the additional reply filed by the respondents, which reads as under:-

"6. The benefit of further pay fixation in the grade of IA which was regulated vide order dated 19.08.2004 (Annexure R-2) effective from 03.02.2004 was not available to the Applicant who retired on 31.05.2003 (prior to 03.02.2004)."

Para 10 of the Tribunal's order under review reads as under:-

"10. From the perusal of the Coordinate Bench's order dated 26.08.2003 in O.A No. 262/2003 filed by the applicant earlier, it is clear that the reliefs claimed by the applicant in the present O.A and those claimed in O.A 262/2003 are the same. Therefore, it is clear that this matter has already been considered by this Tribunal, and the O.A has been dismissed. Further, from the perusal of the said order in O.A 341/2013, it appears that it was not pointed out by the applicant that his earlier O.A No. 262/2003 has already been dismissed on merits by this 6 O.A 1853/2014 Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal passed the order directing the respondents to examine the case of the applicant for promotion in the light of Shri. G. S. Bedi's order of O. A. No.1376/2009. In compliance of this order of the Tribunal, the competent authority passed the speaking order on 31.07.2013 which indicated that Shri. G. S. Bedi was senior to the applicant and there was only one vacancy in which he was considered for promotion. It is also pertinent that this Tribunal found the compliance of its order dated 29.01.2013 passed in OA No.341/2013 and closed the C.P. No.406/2013 on 26.11.2013. Further, it is clear that with effect from 03.02.2004, the scales of Inspector of Accounts and Senior Administrative Officers have been revised to Rs.7500- 12000/- and the pay fixation done accordingly, therefore, cause of action in this matter also does not subsist."

This para clearly lays out the reasons for dismissal of the OA. The factum of the applicant having received the scale of Rs.7500-12000/- is only an additional issue and is certainly not the ratio deci dendi of the order.

We have fully considered the sole ground raised by the review applicant in the RA. It appears that the applicant in the garb of review is trying to re-argue the matter afresh, which is not the scope of review. It is a well settled principle of law that a review application is not an appeal in disguise or a fresh hearing and for that the proper remedy is to file an appeal before the appropriate forum/superior court.

In case of State of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Kamalsengupta & Anr. [2008(8) SCC 612], the Hon'ble Supreme Court after having considered the important decisions on the subject and defined the difference between the review and appeal, has held as follows:-

"35. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are :

(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its 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 specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(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 larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.

(vii) 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.

(viii) 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."

It is apparent from the above that the scope of the review has a very narrow compass. It has already been covered that there is a difference between appeal and review, and a review cannot be a disguised appeal.

Having considered the submissions of the review applicant, and in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the instant Review application and the same stands dismissed by circulation. No costs.