Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Rudra Pal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - On the previous date i.e., 01.10.2021, we had passed the following order:
"1. The petitioners, who were employed with the then Department of Post and Telegraph [now, Department of Post], under the administrative control of Ministry of Communications, Government of India, were sent on deputation to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) under sway of the Department of Telecommunications.
1.1. The petitioners were, ultimately, absorbed in BSNL, albeit, with effect from 14.02.2005, via a decision taken, in that behalf, on 30.9.2000.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved, as their pay was not fixed in consonance with the provisions of "GI0 (10) below Fundamental Rule (FR) 22 [i.e., Government of India instruction, dated 20.1.1970]".
3. In support of their plea, the petitioners seek to place reliance on two expert committee reports, dated 05.02.2016 and 30.4.2019. Unfortunately, these reports were not made available to the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal") by the petitioners.
3.1 The petitioners have now filed an application i.e., CM No.34488/2021, for bringing the same on record.
4. Mr Puneet Kumar Verma, counsel for the petitioners, states that, t
The central legal point established is the significance of expert committee reports in the review petition and their impact on the impugned order.
Administrative authority cannot review judicially quashed charge memorandum attaining finality by issuing fresh inquiry notices absent statutory power; violates judicial discipline.
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and does not allow for re-examination of the merits of a case.
The power of review is limited to correcting patent errors, not re-evaluating merits; mere recommendations do not confer enforceable rights.
The fixation of payscale should be left to the wisdom of the employer, and the court should exercise restraint while dealing with such matters.
The Central Administrative Tribunal must act independently as the court of first instance and cannot rely on previously quashed High Court orders in its adjudication.
A person senior in a gradation list cannot be allowed to be paid lesser salary than his junior, as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs. Punjab State Electricity ....
A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the court shall not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or paten....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
