The main legal point established is that the DOP&T OM dated 07.08.1989 aims to protect the 'basic salary' plus 'dearness allowance' of candidates recruited from Public Sector Undertakings.

JUDGMENT

Talwant Singh, J.

CM APPL. 29753/2022 (Delay)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

2. The application is disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 157/2022

3. The petitioner has preferred this review petition seeking review of the final judgment dated 13.11.2019 by which the writ petition filed by him was dismissed. While giving the background of the matter, it has been submitted that the petitioner was not satisfied regarding fixing of his pay at the time of his appointment as an Education Officer in the UGC w.e.f. 28.03.1995. He preferred OA No. 687/2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'). The Tribunal dismissed the said OA on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9346/2018 before this Court, which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 13.11.2019.

3.1. In grounds of review, the petitioner has submitted that Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC') read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC covers an instance of misconception of fact or law by the Court or by an Advocate and the said mistakes deserve to be cured. The impugned pay fixation by respondents is against the assurance given to the petitioner in the Offer of Appointment dated 14/15.03.1995; it is a misconception of fact by this Court regarding the aims and objectives of DOP&T OM dated 07.08.1989, which was issued to ensure minimum loss to the candidates, who join government service from a Public Sector Undertaking; the respondent lost sight of OM dated 07.08.1989 issued under FR 22 (24) while fixing the pay of the petitioner; the impugned pay fixation is causing consequential continuous loss in terms of the pay and pension to the petitioner month by month and he is entitled to pay protection.

3.2. The petitioner has referred to certain judgments regarding maintainability of the review petition and thereafter he has prayed that judgment and order dated 13.11.2019 be recalled and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9346/2018 be allowed with costs.

4. We have heard the petitioner on 18.11.2022. The only ground on which the petitioner has preferred the review petition is that there is a misconception of fact or law by this Court while interpreting the DOP&T OM dated 07.08.1989 and the illustrations given in the said OM. The DOP&T OM No. 12/1/88-Est. (Pay-I), which deals with the guidelines for pay protection of candidates recruited from PSUs in Government service is reproduced hereunder:

"D.P.T., O.M. No. 12/1/88-Est. (Pay-I),

Dated 7-8-1989

Guidelines for pay protection of candidates recruited from P.S.Us., etc.

The undersigned is directed to say that as per extant rules/orders on the subject, pay protection is granted to candidates who are appointed by the method of recruitment by selection through the Union Public Service Commission if such candidates are in Government service. No such pay protection is granted to candidates working in Public Sector Undertakings, Universities, Semi-Government Institutions or Autonomous Bodies, when they are so appointed in Government. As a result of this, it has not been possible for government draw upon the talent that is available in non-Government organizations.

2. The question as to how any protection can be given in the case of candidates recruited from Public Sector Undertakings, etc., has been engaging the attention of the Government for some time. The matter has been carefully considered and the President is pleased to decide that in respect of candidates working in Public Sector Undertakings, Universities, Semi-Government institutions or Autonomous Bodies, who are appointed as direct recruits on selection through a properly constituted agency including departmental authorities making recruitment directly, their initial pay may be fixed at a stage in the scale of pay attached to the post so that the pay and D.A. as admissib