Satpal Singh vs Union Of India And Ors

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

MA No.1001/2018

This MA has been by the Review Applicant claiming that as there is delay of only 90 days so the same may be condoned and MA may be allowed.

In view of prayer made in the MA, the same is allowed. RA No. 36/2018 In OA No. 30/2013

The facts, in brief, are that while deciding the Original Application (OA) bearing No.30/2013, this Tribunal considered all the issues raised by the Review Applicants, i.e. respondents in the OA and disposed of the same on merits on 19.08.2017 (Annexure-RA-1). The operative part of the said order reads as under:-

"17. Thus, applicant was issued appointment letter on 29.02.2008 and has been working in the same capacity of Assistant Binder till he was removed because of a decision in the matter of Puneet and Another (supra). Thereafter, his services were terminated with effect from 28.12.2012 and he is still continuing in service on the basis of the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 03.01.2013. So effectively, applicant has been working since 2008 and, therefore, the protection given by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C ) No.26/2009 and of this Tribunal in similar matters must be extended to him also. Therefore, the impugned order dated 28.12.2012 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are further directed to continue the services of the applicant by adjusting him in any of the existing or future vacancies of Assistant Binder. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. No costs."

Now the Review Applicants, i.e., respondents have filed the present RA bearing No.36/2018 for reviewing the indicated order, mainly on the ground that Tribunal has erred in granting relief to the original applicant though he was not eligible for the same. This cannot be a ground for reviewing the order. Thus review applicants cannot be permitted to re-agitate all the points again.

It is now well settled principle of law that the earlier order can only be reviewed if the case squarely falls within the legal ambit of review and not otherwise. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regulates the provisions of review of the orders. According to the said provision, a review will lie only when there is discovery of any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by the review applicant seeking the review at the time when the order was passed or made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others (1997) 8 SCC 715, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa (1999) 9 SCC 596, Union of India Vs. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658 and Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers' Association & Others (2007) 9 SCC 369.

An identical question came up to be decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another (2008) 8 SCC 612. Having interpreted the scope of review and considering the catena of previous judgments mentioned therein, the following principles were culled out to review the orders:-

"(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".

Meaning thereby, the original order can only be reviewed if case strictly falls within the domain of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and not otherwise. In the instant RA, the review applicants have not pointed out any error apparent on the face of record warranting a review of the order dated 19.08.2017 (Annexure-RA-1). Moreover, the issues now sought to be urged, were subject matter of the OA and have already been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no apparent error on the face of record, so no ground is made out to entertain the present Review Application, which is accordingly dismissed.