The Union Of India through General Manager, EC Railway vs Barafi Devi wife of Late Vijay Shankar Pandey

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Pat) 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. Bajanthri, Arun Kumar Jha, JJ.
The Union Of India through General Manager, EC Railway and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Barafi Devi wife of Late Vijay Shankar Pandey and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18237 of 2016
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Tuhin Shankar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Munna Pd Dixit, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, Advocate, Ms. Swastika, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dixit, Advocate.

Headnote:
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 22(3)(f) – Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 – Rule 24 – Power of CAT to review its own Order passed in Review Application – Rule 24 of Rules, 1987 cannot over-ride provisions of Act, 1985 – Rule 24 is not on an application like Miscellaneous Application or Review Application by an aggrieved person – On other hand, it empowers suo motu power to CAT – An Order which has been passed under Section 22(3)(f) of Act, 1985, cannot be recalled or reviewed while invoking Rule 24 of Rules 1987 – For recalling or reviewing any Order passed under Section 22(3)(f) of Act, 1985, there is no provision of law under Act, 1985. (Paras 15, 16, 20, 21 and 23)

JUDGMENT :

P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.

In the instant writ petition, Union of India-petitioner feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order(s) of the Central Administrative Tribunal prayed for following relief(s):-

“A. For quashing and setting aside the order/judgment dated 09.05.2013 passed in O.A. No. 738 of 2001 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, whereby the orders of reversion dated 23.07.2001 has been quashed and the respondents have been directed to absorb the applicant/husband of respondent no.1 herein on the post of Goods Guard in the scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-forthwith with consequential benefits.

B. For quashing the order dated 10.01.2013 passed in R.A. No. 16/2006 with M.A. No. 453 of 2012 (arising out of O.A. 738 of 2001) whereby the R.A. was restored and allowed and the OA No. 738 of 2001 which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 31.12.2004 was recalled and ordered to be listed for rehearing.

C. For quashing of the order dated 28.04.2016 passed by the learned CAT, Patna Bench in M.A. 050/00063/2014 (arising out of CCPA 139/2013, O.A. 738/2001) whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the Misc. Applications filed on behalf of the petitioners herein or modification of the above referred order dated 09.05.2013 passed in O.A. No. 738 of 2001 which has been obtained by misrepresentation of the facts.

D. For any other relief/s to which the petitioners are found entitled to.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that Vijay Shankar Pandey, who was an employee of the petitioner-Railway Department, filed Original Application No. 738 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short ‘CAT’), questioning the validity of the order dated 23.07.2001, by which he has been reverted from the post of Goods Guard to that of Senior Commercial Clerk. Further, he has prayed for absorption on the post of Goods Guard etc. CAT dismissed the O.A. No. 738 of 2001 on 31.12.2004.

3. The Respondent-Vijay Shankar Pandey had filed Review Application on 28.01.2005. Due to office objection or any other administrative difficulties the matter was listed only in the year 2006 and numbered as R.A. No. 16 of 2006. Taking note of certain pleadings, CAT dismissed the R.A. No. 16 of 2006. It is necessary to reproduce Para-4 of the order. Para-4 reads as under:-

“As per Rule 17[1] of CAT [Procedure] Rules, 1987, the Review Application should be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. But we find that the order dated 31.12.2004 was ready for delivery on 07.01.2005 but as per the instant Review Application the affidavit was affirmed on 23.01.2006 which is almost after one year and for which no application for condonation of delay was filed.”

4. Respondent-Vijay Shankar Pandey filed M.A. No. 453 of 2012 to recall the order dated 06.09.2012 passed in R.A. No. 16 of 2006.

5. On 10.01.2013, CAT while passing order in M.A. No. 453 of 2012 read with R.A. No. 16 of 2006, passed the following order. Para- 5 to 8 of which reads as under:-

“5. Having regard to the submissions made in the MA and at the time of hearing of the MA, we allow the MA and restore the RA. The learned counsel submitted an English translation of the representation (Annexure A/5 of OA) after the hearing of the MA. A perusal of this Annexure A/5 does not indicate that the applicant had not opted. The way the representation was drafted probably may have given room for ambiguity or the interpretation indicated in the order of this Tribunal. There appears to be an error apparent on face of record in the order in OA on this aspect.

6. In para 11 of the order in the OA, this Tribunal said as follows:

11. As regards the fulfilling of the passing of requisite training prior to cut off date, it is admitted that the applicant has passed the said training after the cut off date. Whether that would suffice and fulfil the requirement of getting the promotional benefit or not, would ramin a question of ac