Headnote:
West Bengal (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1990 - West Bengal (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1981 - Administrative Tribunals Act - Section 4 - Constitution of India,1950 – Article 309 - Quashing letter - Joining service - Civil Services - Respondents appeared in competitive examination conducted by West Bengal Public Service Commission in 1973 for recruitment to West Bengal Civil Services and other Allied Services - They were declared successful and were allotted to West Bengal Food and Supplies Service - Initially they were posted as Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies - In due course they were promoted as Assistant Director, Deputy Director and finally as Director and their pay was fixed in scales prescribed for those posts - Held, High Court was not justified in recording a conclusion that denial of Scale Nos.19 and 21 had resulted in violation of the respondents fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,16 and 21 of Constitution and that too by ignoring fact that respondents had not produced any tangible evidence to prima facie prove that they had been subjected to hostile discrimination or that decision of the State Government not to extend the benefit of Scale to members of service was irrational and arbitrary - It is trite to say that in such matters onus is always on employee to prima facie substantiate plea of discrimination or arbitrary exercise of power and only then State or its instrumentality/agency or public body - Appeal is Allowed

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Tribunal’s power to review its own order is akin to Civil Court review under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC; grounds are limited to discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. (!) (!) (!) - An error must be self-evident from the record; mere disagreement with law or later decisions cannot justify review; explanation added to Order 47 clarifies that subsequent superior court decisions cannot themselves ground a review. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Review cannot be based on subsequent judgments or memoranda that were not before the Tribunal at the time of the initial decision; reliance on such later developments to grant relief amounts to jurisdictional error. (!) (!) (!) - The onus of demonstrating discrimination or arbitrariness lies with the employee; policy decisions and binding nature of departmental recommendations are not automatic grounds to grant relief absent established facts. (!) (!) (!) - The Tribunal may not extend benefits beyond the scope of the original scheme without proper evidence and lawful grounds; review of a decision cannot substitute for a fresh substantive determination on eligibility. (!) (!) (!)

What is the authority of a Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to review its own order, and on what grounds can such review be conducted?

What constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" or "new and important matter or evidence" sufficient to justify a review by a Tribunal under the Act?

What are the limitations on using subsequent judgments or memoranda as grounds for reviewing a Tribunal’s earlier order?

JUDGMENT

G.S. Singhvi, J.

Whether a Tribunal established under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short `the Act) can review its decision on the basis of subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger bench or any superior Court or on the basis of subsequent event/development is the question which arises for determination of this appeal filed by the State of West Bengal and others against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the said High Court declined to interfere with order dated 25.9.2001 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short `the Tribunal) in R.A. No.26 of 1998.

2. The facts necessary for deciding the aforementioned question are as under:-

(i) Respondents Kamal Sengupta and Narayan Chandra Ghosh appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the West Bengal Public Service Commission in 1973 for recruitment to West Bengal Civil Services (Executive) and other Allied Services. They were declared successful and were allotted to West Bengal Food and Supplies Service (hereinafter described as `the service). Initially, they were posted as Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies. In due course, they were promoted as Assistant Director, Deputy Director and finally as Director and their pay was fixed in the scales prescribed for those posts. They were also given the benefit of revised scales under the West Bengal (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as `ROPA 1981) and the West Bengal (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as `ROPA 1990).

(ii) After 20 years of joining the service, the respondents filed Writ Petition No.1547 of 1995 for quashing letter dated 6.1.1995 vide which the Finance Department of the State Government rejected their claim for grant of Pay Scale Nos.19 and 21 in terms of the Career Advancement Scheme (for short `the Scheme) framed by the Government of West Bengal, which was circulated vide Memorandum dated 21.6.1990 and for issue of a mandamus to the State Government to take action in accordance with the recommendations made by Secretary, Food and Supplies Department vide his DO No.G-5250/FC dated 5.10.1992, G-5302/FC dated 16.10.1992 and Con-223/FS dated 27.4.1994. They further prayed for issue of direction to the non-petitioners (the appellants herein) to declare the posts in Scale Nos.19 and 21 under Rule 2(b) of ROPA 1990 to be in the ranks of Joint Secretary and Special Secretary respectively and sanction those posts for members of the service in the same ratio as was done in the case of West Bengal Civil Services Officers.

(iii) In the affidavit filed by him in support of the writ petition, Narayan Chandra Ghosh (respondent no.2 herein) referred to the factum of sanction of Pay Scale Nos.17, 18 and 19 to members of the service under ROPA 1981, recommendations made by the Third Pay Commission, the Scheme and averred that they have been subjected to hostile discrimination in the matter of grant of Scale Nos.19 and 21. For the sake of reference, paragraphs 5, 9, 13, 17 and 18 of the affidavit of respondent no.2 are reproduced below :-

"5. That the petitioners having entered in to W.B.F.& S.S., in the year of 1974/75 after successfully passing the West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and certain allied service examination held in 1973 were first posted in the basic grade posts of Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies and thereafter in recognition to meritorious service since rendered by them were posted in different senior posts and posts with higher responsibilitie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 981

2008 (8) SCC 612IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAB.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.The State of West Bengal and others - AppellantsVersusKamal Sengupta and another - RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL NO. 1694 OF 2006Decided On: June 16, 2008

What is the authority of a Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to review its own order, and on what grounds can such review be conducted?

What constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" or "new and important matter or evidence" sufficient to justify a review by a Tribunal under the Act?

What are the limitations on using subsequent judgments or memoranda as grounds for reviewing a Tribunal’s earlier order?

Cases Referred (19)

2008 (8) SCC 612
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal and G.S. Singhvi, JJ.
The State of West Bengal and others - Appellants
Versus
Kamal Sengupta and another - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1694 OF 2006
Decided On: June 16, 2008