AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
This RA has been filed by the applicant in OA under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 06.12.2023 passed in OA No.1231/2018. The relevant excerpt of the said order in OA reads as under :-
“17. We have gone through all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. For the reasons explained, these judgments do not come to the rescue of the applicant as the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court are not attracted in the present facts as in the instant OA. We are confronted with the fact that the applicant was engaged on contractual basis and she has not been replaced by another contractual employee. We reiterate that the applicant was never terminated and her employment came to an end with afflux of time.
For the reasons explained hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the OA and the same, being devoid of merits, is accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”
This Review Application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 06.12.2023. The reason for seeking review of the order is that judgment disposing of the OA is perverse on facts and law inasmuch as the judgments relied upon by the applicant in OA have not been considered and that the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the contractual employment of the applicant ended because of the afflux of time while the impugned order did not reflect the same.
He further submits that in response to additional affidavit filed by the respondents in February 2023, the reply affidavit dated 02.08.2023 was filed bringing out the infirmities in contention of the applicant including the fact that identically placed persons were working with the respondents. However, the same has not been considered.
We have gone through the order under review with respect to the judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant . Para 6 of the said judgment incorporates all the judgments that the learned counsel for the applicant referred to and the same have been duly considered and a finding has been recorded as under :-
“17. We have gone through all the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. For the reasons explained, these judgments do not come to the rescue of the applicant as the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court are not attracted in the present facts as in the instant OA. We are confronted with the fact that the applicant was engaged on contractual basis and she has not been replaced by another contractual employee. We reiterate that the applicant was never terminated and her employment came to an end with afflux of time.
With respect to the termination of the applicant’s engagement with the afflux of time, the engagement order clearly finds mention that the applicant’s engagement continued till 2008 and she was informed by the impugned order that the same shall not be extended beyond 31.03.2018. By implication, it ended with afflux of time. With respect to the parity sought by the learned counsel for the review applicant in para 16 of the said judgment, it clearly records the fact that the applicant has sought parity with similarly placed persons and the same has been duly dealt with.
We have carefully considered the contentions raised in the Review Application and examined the order against which the review has been sought. According to us, there is no error of fact or law which invites intervention of this Tribunal under the review.
There is no finding of fact or law in the Order under review that may define an error in the order, which could be the trigger for filing the present Review Application. The learned counsel for the applicant himself confirmed that the contents of the impugned order are correct. The learned counsel for the review applicant is trying to re-argue the matter and is bringing out the facts which have already been duly considered.
The scope of review is limited to situations where a new evidence has been discovered, which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant earlier either on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. These principles have been reiterated in :-
(i) Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2004) SCC (L&S) 160
(ii) Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 596
(iii) State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr 2008 (9) SCALE 509
(iv) Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Ors. 2007 9 SCC 369
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.”
From the above, it is amply clear that existence of error apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for entertainment of the Review Application.
We are convinced that as there is no finding of fact or law, there cannot be an error with respect to the same warranting interference in the order through the exercise of review jurisdiction.
The review application is accordingly dismissed in circulation.