AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
22 paragraphs · 1,209 wordsAjay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Application to review/recall interim order dated 08.05.2025 in O.A./1711/2025 filed under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is currently working as a Data Entry Operator, Grade A at D.G. of Audit (Defence Services) New Delhi on deputation and blessed three minor children, 10 years daughter and twin sons aged 7 years. Husband of applicant is a Govt. Servant working in Govt. of India Press in a non-transferable job. Vide interim order dated 08.05.2025 in O.A./1711/2025 passed and denied the interim relief, whereas extension of interim relief already been granted to the similarly situated applicants in pending O.A./1263/2025.
Ms. Aanchal Anand, learned counsel for the applicant further contended that respondents in O.A./1711/2025 by applicant while hearing on interim relief respondents, therein argued that in O.A./1263/2025 and O.A. of the applicant, there are different facts and ground as there was no shortage of staff and tenure on deputation was below 7 years. The relief granted in O.A./1263/2025 to the applicant was denied to applicant vide order dated 08.05.2025 in case of applicant, i.e., O.A./1711/2025.
Mr. Siddhant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent contended that applicant is posted on deputation basis since 19.12.2022 initial for one year and already completed 8th year on deputation and as per policy dated 27.01.2025, deputation period is till 17.06.2025 and applicant also completed six months after completing 8th year deputation and extension for 9th year has been rejected as per policy dated 27.01.2025.
Learned counsel for respondent also argued that short reply has been filed and the applicant prior to deputation on the office of DG ADS, New Delhi since 19.12.2022 was also on deputation in O/o DGA CE, New Delhi from 2014 to 2022 for 8 years and as per policy dated 27.01.2025, the period of deputation already exceed beyond 7 years of deputation and since 19.12.2022 till 18.12.2024 period extended for 2nd year. On non-approval of extension applicant was repatriated on 29.01.2025 and respondent approved extension of another tenure of 6 months which ends on 17.06.2025 in terms of policy dated 27.01.2025. In case of O.A./1263/2025, Namita Kumari vs. CAG, vide order dated 07.04.2025, interim relief was granted on consideration that without giving opportunity to be retained for further 6 months, as per para 2 of policy dated 27.01.2025, she was repatriated, whereas on face of undisputed facts, there is no parity with present case.
Mr. Siddhant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent further argued that in case of Namita Kumari, and in present case there is no parity and this Tribunal already considered all the arguments and passed reasoned and speaking order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure RA-1) taking into consideration order passed in case of Namita Kumari in O.A./1263/2025 and review application against interim order dated 08.05.2025 is generally not entertained and remedy lies elsewhere to applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that arguments related to parity with O.A./1263/2025 has already been heard and interim prayer rejected vide order in question in this Review Petition and no re-hearing is permissible in garb of after though grounds in present R.P. and same arguments already heard and considered.
Heard with consent. We have already heard at length on 08.05.2025 learned counsels for both the parties and passed a detailed interim order dated 08.05.2025 in O.A./1711/2025. The relevant paragraph nos. 8 to 10 read as under:-
“8. Heard. We have considered the matter. Applicant is on deputation and as per policy applicable dated 27.01.2025, the revised guidelines, staff on deputation beyond 7 years shall be allowed only for another 6 months from date of issue of policy dated 27.01.2025 and deputation period is ending on 17.06.2025. Applicant has already completed 8th year on deputation and extension for 9th year has been rejected as per policy dated 27.01.2025. It is well settled in law that a deputationist has no legal right to the post beyond deputation period as stated in the applicable policy.
Applicant has failed to make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience is not in favour and no irreparable loss likely to cause and there is no availability of three essential conditions for grant of interim relief.
We have already heard at length learned counsels for both the parties and after hearing for grant of interim relief is hereby rejected.”
[Emphasis supplied]
This Tribunal has already granted reasonable opportunities of hearing to counsel for the parties on 08.05.2025 and considering the same arguments, so also considered grounds of parity of present case vis-à-vis case in O.A./1263/2025, whereby interim order was granted and after consideration of interim order dated 07.04.2025 in O.A./1263/2025, this Tribunal passed detailed, interim order dated 08.05.2025 in O.A./1711/2025 of the applicant and declined to grant interim relief as applicant is a deputationist and has no legal right to post beyond deputation period as stated in the applicable policy dated 27.01.2025.
The same arguments of applicant has already been considered while passing order in question and in garb of present review application against interim order dated 08.05.2025 in question. The applicant intends to re-open the entire matter once again and agitating same grounds once again, already considered and decided.
The power of this Tribunal to review its own interim order in question is limited and Hob’ble Supreme Court in case of Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra, ACR 2002 SC 2537. Their Lordships held that, “the power of Tribunal to review its own order is limited. Tribunal could only interfere in the matter if the error pointed out is plain and apparent.”
In case of State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta, reported in (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735. Their Lordships in paragraph 35 have called out principles for a review of own order and held that, “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 in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f) and an erroneous order cannot be corrected in guise of exercise of power of review.” Their Lordships in paragraph 35 (vii) also held that, “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. So also Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review.”
Learned counsel for the respondent much emphasized that at the time of consideration of interim order dated 08.05.2025 in question, the same material adjudicated and it is settled legal position in catena of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court that deputationist does not have legal right to hold the post beyond deputation period and interim orders are not binding.
For all the reasons stated herein above, there is no error apparent on the face of record in interim order dated 08.05.2025 passed in pending O.A./1711/2025 and in our considered opinion, no interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction is warranted.
Resultantly, the Review Application assailing interim order dated 08.05.2025 in O.A./1711/2025 is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Dasti.