Union Of India And Others vs Anirudh Kaushik And Others

Ashish Kalia, Member (J)

This Review Application is filed by the respondent in OA No. 1531/2020 seeking review of order dated 06.01.2023 passed in the said OA. The OA was filed by the applicants therein seeking following reliefs:

(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 17.10.2019 (Annex. A/1) and order dated 1.01.2019 (Annex. A/2) only to the extend by which the applicant have not been promoted to the post of Inspector (Income Tax) w.e.f. 1.1.2019 along with their juniors, declaring to the effect that the same are totally illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and promote the applicants to the post of Inspector (Income Tax), from the date of promotion of juniors persons with all consequential benefits with arrears of difference of pay and allowances from that date.

(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to treat the appointment of the applicants to the post of Tax Assistant from the date of appointment of their juniors notionally for the purpose of granting service benefits at par with their juniors with all consequential benefits.”

This Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the records and appreciating the legal position, passed the following order on 06.01.2023:

The  OA  has  merit  on  its  side  and  is  hereby allowed. The exercise to consider and promote the applicants w.e.f. the date of promotion of their juniors i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.2019, if they are otherwise found suitable, shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.

The review applicant has now filed this RA on the ground that order impugned in the OA is based upon assumptions and presumptions and that the Junior-Senior clause is not available in the Recruitment Rules of the Inspector. Various other grounds are also urged.

The Apex court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. - 2008 (2) SCC 735 has enumerated the principles to be followed by the Administrative Tribunals when it exercises the power of review of its own orders under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They 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 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 a 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.”

By the present Review Application, the case put forth by the review applicant is for re-consideration of the factual circumstance of the case which is not envisaged in the principles for review of the order as enumerated by the Apex court in the aforecited dictum. In short, the review applicant seeks a re-hearing of the case which is not contemplated under the power of review envisaged under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Further no error apparent on the face of the record could be established by the review applicant.

In the light of the above decision and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Tribunal does not find any error apparent on the face of the record which would warrant review of Annexure RP-1 order. Accordingly, the RA is dismissed, in circulation.