Union Of India And Ors vs Dalvir Singh

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

Through the medium of this Review Application (RA), the review applicants, who were respondents in OA No.2868/2018, have sought review of order dated 01.08.2018 passed in the said OA.

The Tribunal, after considering the nature of controversy involved, disposed of the OA vide order dated 01.08.2018 in the following terms:

"A The applicant is granted liberty to submit a supplementary representation in addition to the one dated 09.05.2018 which he has already submitted, to Respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from today.

B. The Respondent no.3 shall dispose of the supplementary representation as well as pending representation dated 09.05.2018 of the applicant within a period of four weeks thereafter.

C. No coercive action shall be taken by Respondent No.3 against the applicant till his supplementary representation as well as the representation dated 09.05.2018 are decided by Respondent No.3. Needless to say that the representations shall be disposed of by Respondent No.3 by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

D. Till the representations of the applicant are decided, Respondent No.3 shall allow the applicant to continue to work in his present post of Accountant in its office."

Aggrieved by the above order, the respondents/review applicants have filed the instant RA. The main grounds pleaded in the RA for review of the order dated 01.08.2018 are as under:

3.1 The impugned order is bad in law as the same has been passed without affording any opportunity to the review applicants to revert to the contention raised by the respondent in the RA.

3.2 The respondent/original applicant was appointed on deputation w.e.f. 20.03.2015 which was extended for a period of three years on receipt of non objection from his parent department and on completion of his deputation he was relieved and repatriated to his parent department on 10.05.2018.

3.3 The direction of the Tribunal contained in the order under review, whereby the Tribunal directed the respondent no.3 to allow the original applicant to continue his work in his present post of Accountant, is against the law laid down in the case of Ratilal B. Soni v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1990 SCSLJ 126].

3.4 It has been held by the Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of R. Vidyadharan v. Chairman, CAT, PB, New Delhi & Ors., [1994 (2) ATJ 562] that once the period of deputation comes to an end, the employee has no right to get extension or deputation.

3.5 A gross error of law has crept in the impugned order dated 1.8.2018 that this Hon'ble Tribunal has inadvertently overlooked the settled proposition of law and directed the respondents/review applicants to allow him to continue in his present post till his representations are disposed of.

We have perused the RA. The scope of review lies in a narrow compass as prescribed under Order XLVII, Rule (1) of CPC. None of the grounds raised in the RA brings it within the scope and purview of review. It appears that the review applicants are trying to re-argue the matter afresh, as if in appeal, which is not permissible. If in the opinion of the review applicants the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, the remedy lies elsewhere. Under the garb of review, the review applicants cannot be allowed to raise the same grounds, which were considered and rejected by the Tribunal while passing the order under review.

Existence of an error apparent on the face of the record is sine qua non for reviewing the order. The review applicants have failed to bring out any error apparent on the face of the order under review.

On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209] stating therein that "the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision."

At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-

"(i) The power of Tribunal to review it 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 specific grounds

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (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 a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court

(vii) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).

(viii) 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.

(ix) 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."

For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paras, we do not find any merit in the RA. Accordingly, the RA is dismissed in circulation.

In view of the above, no separate order is required to be passed in MA No.3450/2018, which accordingly stands disposed of.