Full Judgment
without availing appropriate procedure is miscarriage of justice and thereby he filed this application for review. Mr. Vidyadharan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied on pains 3 & 4 of a decision of Bangalore Bench of CAT, reported in 1991 (18) ATC 5 11 wherein the CAT, Bangalore Bench has held that a Government employee shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date of absorption in or under a corporation, company or body wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government and shall be eligible it, receive retirement benefit. It was further held therein that an employee is entitled to pro rata retirement benefits even if he resigns from service of the corporation afterwards.
2. In view of the aforesaid circumstances it has to be seen whether the grounds stated in the application for recall of the order dated 13.6.97 would disclose the sufficient cause for recalling the impugned order dated 13.6.97 which was passed in the absence of the learned advocate of the applicant. It is admitted by the applicant that the case was heard and the applicant's advocate Mr. Prasad was heard and he argued the case well before this Tribunal on 23.4.97, That fact is not disputed, but the applicant's advocate Mr. Prasad could not appear on 13.6.97 when the judgment was passed. Even though the learned advocate for the applicant does not appear the Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the record and hearing Mrs. Sanyal had passed a speaking and reasoned order disclosing the ground for refusal of the relief to the applicant, as claimed for in the original application. Mr. Vidyadharan, learned advocate has drawn our attention to para 4 of the office memorandum dated 31.1.86.
Annexure/A on the subject of appointment of Central Government servants in the Central Public Enterprises on immediate absorption basis and terms and conditions thereof. And referring to that provision Mr.
Vidyadharan submits that the applicant has intimated to the Railway authorities that he was going to join M/s Andrew Yule & Co. and that intimation was given before his joining. The provision of para 4 of the office memorandum runs as follows : "Resignation from Government service with a view to secure employment in a Central Public enterprise with proper permission will not entail forfeiture of the service for the purpose of retirement/terminal benefits. In such cases, the Government servant concerned shall be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such resignation and shall be eligible to receive all the retirement/terminal benefits as admissible under the relevant rules applicable to him in his parent organisation." On a perusal of the said provision it is found that the application by the Government servant with a view to seeking employment in Government undertaking must be with proper permission. In that case only his resignation will not entail forfeiture of past service for the purpose of retirement benefits. In para 5 of the original judgment we have considered the said fact and we are satisfied that the applicant did not apply through proper channel to join M/s Andrew Yule & Co, and did not join with permission from the Railway respondents. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any cogent reason for further appreciation of the record on the basis of the submissions made by Mr.
Vidyadharan, learned advocate on behalf of the applicant. It is a settled law that recall of the order is permissible only in case where patent irregularity or illegality has been committed by the Court by overlooking the material documents placed before the Court or Tribunal.
The applicant could not produce a scrap of paper before us at the time of hearing over the matter of review application that his resignation was accepted by the Railway authorities for the purpose of joining the Company viz., M/s Andrew Yule & Co.
3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we do not find any ground to recall the order, as prayed for and accordingly the application is dismissed as devoid of merit awarding no costs.