P.G. Samuel, Poomangalathil, Kerala Vs. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Central Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/940320
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided OnNov-18-2009
Case NumberReview Application No. 27 of 2007 in Original Application No. 750 of 2007
JudgeHONOURABLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HONOURABLE MS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AppellantP.G. Samuel, Poomangalathil, Kerala
RespondentUnion of India, Represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, Central Secretaria
Advocates:For the Review Applicant: Mr. S.A. Razzak, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, SCGSC.
Excerpt:
hon'ble mr. george paracken, judicial member - this application has been filed to review the order in o.a.750/2007 decided on 12.3.2009 having its operative part as under: "2. the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant, mainly on the ground of delay. however, they filed a miscellaneous application today enclosing therewith the office order no. p.vii.4/2008- ra 27/07 med-ii dated 13th january, 2009 by which applicant has been allowed 2nd acp w.e.f. 1.4.1998 raising his pay scale from rs. 4500-125-7000/- to rs. 5000-150-8000/-. 3. the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that with the aforesaid order, reliefs sought by the applicant in this oa has been granted and the oa already has become infructuous. as the applicant's counsel was not present, we did not have the opportunity to hear him. however, we have perused entire pleadings and found that with the issuance of the aforesaid office order dated 13.1.2009, the grievance of the applicant has been fully met and this oa has become infructuous. it is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs." 2. the review applicant has urged the following grounds for the review of the aforesaid order: (i) the applicant is at sl. no. 189 in annexure a-1 list of pharmacist found eligible for acps in the pay scale of rs. 5500-9000 and the date assigned to him for 24 year qualifying service was 1.4.1998 (ii)similarly placed pharmacists who are at sl. no. 173 to 180 and from 185 to 188 who have acquired qualifying service have been paid the acps revision in the scale rs. 5500-9000 and therefore, he is also entitled to get the acps in the same scale. 3. the review applicant has not established that there was any error apparent on the face of the records. in our considered opinion, the review applicant is only trying to re-argue the matter afresh. 4. the scope of an application for review is very limited. in the case of ajith kumar rath vs. state of orissa and others, (2000(1) slr 622) wherein it has been held as under: "29. the provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under section 114 read with order 47 cpc. the power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in order 47. the power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. the power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is ra 27/07 to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction or a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing. it may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in order 47 rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule." 5. in view of the above position, we are of the view that this review application deserves to dismissed. accordingly, the same is dismissed. no order as to costs.
Judgment:

HON'BLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER -

This application has been filed to review the order in O.A.750/2007 decided on 12.3.2009 having its operative part as under:

"2. The Respondents have contested the claim of the Applicant, mainly on the ground of delay. However, they filed a Miscellaneous Application today enclosing therewith the office order No. P.VII.4/2008- RA 27/07 Med-II dated 13th January, 2009 by which applicant has been allowed 2nd ACP w.e.f. 1.4.1998 raising his pay scale from Rs. 4500-125-7000/- to Rs. 5000-150-8000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that with the aforesaid order, reliefs sought by the applicant in this OA has been granted and the OA already has become infructuous. As the applicant's counsel was not present, we did not have the opportunity to hear him. However, we have perused entire pleadings and found that with the issuance of the aforesaid office order dated 13.1.2009, the grievance of the Applicant has been fully met and this OA has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."

2. The review applicant has urged the following grounds for the review of the aforesaid order:

(i) The applicant is at Sl. No. 189 in Annexure A-1 list of Pharmacist found eligible for ACPS in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and the date assigned to him for 24 year qualifying service was 1.4.1998

(ii)Similarly placed Pharmacists who are at Sl. No. 173 to 180 and from 185 to 188 who have acquired qualifying service have been paid the ACPS revision in the scale Rs. 5500-9000 and therefore, he is also entitled to get the ACPS in the same scale.

3. The review applicant has not established that there was any error apparent on the face of the records. In our considered opinion, the review applicant is only trying to re-argue the matter afresh.

4. The scope of an application for review is very limited. In the case of Ajith Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (2000(1) SLR 622) wherein it has been held as under:

"29. The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is RA 27/07 to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction or a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule."

5. In view of the above position, we are of the view that this Review Application deserves to dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.