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 patent mistake or grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

PRELUDE

1. By way of this Review Petition, brought under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the original respondent of the writ petition (hereinafter referred to as "the review applicant") has sought review of final order dated 19.02.2020, whereby the writ petition was allowed by a co- ordinate bench of this court. Since one of the members of the said co- ordinate bench got elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court while the other member demitted office on attaining age of superannuation, by way of orders of the Chief Justice, this Review Petition was assigned to this bench. Although the Review Petition was drafted and filed by a counsel, the review applicant opted to address final arguments in person. We heard the review applicant in person as well as learned counsel for writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "the non-applicants").

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix relevant for the present purposes is as follows.

2.1. The review applicant was appointed as Junior Draughtsman in the office of Directorate General of Employment and Training (`DGET') on 18.02.1983 in the pay-scale of Rs. 330-560, which was revised to Rs. 425- 700 in compliance with an order dated 01.08.1991 passed by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in OA No. 245/1987. At the time when order dated 01.08.1991 of the Tribunal was passed, the pay-scales of Draughtsmen Grades- I, II and III in Central Public Works Department (CPWD), which previously stood at Rs.425-700, Rs.330-560 and Rs.260-430 respectively, were revised to pay- scales of Rs.550-750, Rs.425-700 and Rs.330-560 by way of Office Memorandum dated 13.03.1984. On 09.04.1992, the review applicant got promoted as Senior Draughtsman in the pay-scale of Rs.1660-2660, which was later revised to Rs.5000-8000 in pursuance of the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission.

2.2. On 28.10.1993, one Shri G. Rajan joined DGET as Junior Draughtsman in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-2040, which was subsequently revised to Rs.1400-2300. Thereafter, on 14.10.1998, Shri Rajan was promoted to the post of Senior Draughtsman in the revised pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000. Shri Rajan filed OA No. 351/2003 before the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal praying therein for grant of pre-revision pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 from the date of his promotion with all consequential benefits. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 21.10.2003 of Chennai Bench of the Tribunal and the said order was upheld by the Madras High Court vide order dated 20.03.2008 in the writ challenge. Correspondingly, Shri Rajan was granted revised pay scale of Rs.5500-9000.

2.3. In the present dispute, the review applicant claimed that although he was working as a Senior Draughtsman in the pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000 in terms with the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission, his pay was lesser than his counter-parts in other government organizations. The review applicant claimed parity with Shri Rajan under the principle of equal pay for equal work and sought to be granted same pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000. This claim of the review applicant was rejected by the non- applicants and instead he was granted the pay-scale of Rs.4500-7000.

2.4. The review applicant filed representation dated 14.01.2004, seeking parity of pay-scales with Draughtsman Grade-I of CPWD i.e. Rs.5500-9000 from Rs.5000-8000 and subsequent revision of pay-scales with retrospective effect and cumulative financial benefits. But that representation of the review applicant was rejected vide order dated 31.01.2012, thereby denying the review applicant pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 and instead granted him pay-scale of Rs.5000-8000.

2.5. Aggrieved by order dated 31.01.2012 of the non-applicants, the review applicant filed OA No. 1053/2013 before the Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal placing reliance on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal as appr