Judgment

The instant review petition has been filed by the petitioner above named seeking review of order dated 17.06.2020 passed by this Court, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner bearing WP(C) No.862/2020 stands transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench.

2) It appears that against the aforesaid order of transfer, the petitioner filed an appeal bearing LPA No.86/2020. The said appeal came to be disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of order dated 14.08.2020. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are reproduced here-under:

“2. It appears that the submission addressed before us was placed for consideration before the learned Single Judge. Let the same be placed before the learned Single Judge.

3. In view thereof, Mr. R. A. Jan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submit that the appellant may be allowed to withdraw the instant Letters Patent Appeal with liberty to file a review petition before the learned single Judge.

4. In view of the above narration, this appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

5. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the contention of the appellant and the learned Single Judge would be free to take the view in accordance with law.

3. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant review petition, wherein the following contentions have been raised:

(a) That the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir has been constitutionally structured on the pattern of Union Territory of National Capital of Delhi with its own separate legislature and, as such, the services allocated to Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir are under the legislative and executive domain as well as administrative control of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and, thus, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, has no jurisdiction, power or authority under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to entertain, hear and decide the matters in respect of services rendered in connection with the affairs of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir;

(b) That Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, where-under jurisdiction of the Writ Court in regard to the matters over which jurisdiction is vested in the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 14, stands struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India in L. Chandra Kumar’s case reported in AIR 1997 SC 1125;

(c) That the jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not ousted and continues to be available for being availed even in case where the alternate remedy is not adequate or efficacious. Since no Bench is available at Srinagar, therefore, in view of the statement of law made by the Supreme Court of India in Rojer Mathew’s case (Civil Appeal No.8588/2019 decided on 13.11.2019), the remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal for the employees residing in Kashmir Province cannot be said to be efficacious.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner. I have also gone through the grounds of the review petition and the record of the case.

5. It is a settled law that the review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that an application for review of a judgment can be maintained only on two grounds. Firstly, when the petitioner has discovered a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made and secondly when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

6. The scope of review has been explained by the Supreme Court of India in S. Nagaraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595. Paras 18 and 19 of this judgment, which have been relied upon by the petitioner in the review pet