Review petitions can only correct apparent errors on record; they cannot rehash previously settled arguments. Employees are entitled to executive pay scales when performing duties of a higher post, despite not holding that official title.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The Civil Review No.42 of 2023 and Civil Review No.43 of 2023 have been filed on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Limited (in short, SAIL), the respondent made in W.P.(S) No.1720 of 2017 and W.P.(S) No. 2386 of 2017 and the Civil Review No.100 of 2023 and Civil Review No.101 of 2023 have been filed on behalf of the writ petitioners i.e. the employees concern in the said writ petitions.

2. The jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked for review of the order dated 10.04.2023 to the extent that the direction has been passed by the writ Court in W.P(S) No.1720 of 2017 with W.P.(S) No. 2386 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the petitioners-employees, who have challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 03.01.2017 passed in O.A No.51/52/2015 and the order dated 07.04.2017 passed in O.A/051/00053/2015, have been held to be entitled for the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the non-executive cadre, on the ground that there is no post of Assistant Manager (Mining) of the non-executive cadre in the establishment of the respondent-SAIL.

Factual Matrix

3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petitions have also been incorporated in the present review petitions which need to be referred to herein as under:

4. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the applicants/writ petitioners, who were initially appointed against the substantive post of Overman/Mining Supervisor, have been subsequently appointed/authorized to work as Assistant Managers (Mining) in Chasnalla & Jitpur Colliery of Steel Authority of India (SAIL). The appointment/authorization of the applicants as Assistant Managers (Mining) in the said colliery was done pursuant to their having acquired higher qualifications/certifications for management of coal mines, after passing the requisite examination conducted by the competent Board of Mining Examinations.

5. The applicants/writ petitioners claim that their appointment/ authorization as Assistant Managers (Mining) was due to the shortage of personnel, with requisite qualifications, for functioning as Assistant Managers (Mining) in the Jitpur Colliery. In terms of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, framed under the Coal Mines Act, 1952, a specified number of employees/personnel are required to be appointed for mining operation. The number of personnel to be appointed at different levels in the mines is primarily co-related with the average out-put of the said mines. As such, the appointment/authorization of the applicants as Assistant Managers (Mining) was done as per requirements under the said Coal Mines Regulation, 1957. In other words, the applicants claim that their appointment/authorization as Assistant Manager (Mining) was “directly relatable to the production/output of coal in the mines of the respondents SAIL.

6. In spite of the fact that the applicants have been appointed to act as Assistant Managers (Mining) in terms of the Regulation, 1957, the respondents (SAIL) are not making payment of salary to the applicants vis-a-vis the post of Assistant Manager (Mining) and they are being paid as per the pay scale and other allowances, attached to their substantive post of Overman. Further, the applicants claim that since they are duly qualified and are actually discharging their duties as Assistant Manager (Mining), they