A court has the inherent power to review and recall its order when it is based on a fundamental mistake of fact, particularly regarding the accrual of a cause of action, to ensure that justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities or erroneous assumptions.

JUDGMENT :

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.

A. Appearance of Counsel:-

1. Heard Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned amicus curiae for the applicants-petitioners and Shri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents- opposite parties on the review application and the writ petition.

B. Prayer:-

2. The present review application has been preferred in Writ-A No. 7653 of 2019 (Ashok Kumar Yadav & 2 others v. Union of India & 2 others) with the prayer to review the judgment and order dated 16.05.2019 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us, i.e., Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J. By the said judgment, the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad[Tribunal], dismissing Original Application No.330/00624/2016[Original Application in question] as barred by limitation, was upheld.

2.1. It is clarified that this order is being passed both on the review application as well as on the writ petition. Upon the review application being allowed and the judgment dated 16.05.2019 being recalled, Writ-A No.7653 of 2019 stands restored to its original number. This Court is accordingly proceeding to dispose of the said writ petition on merits as well. As such, both the proceedings are being finally disposed of by this common order for the reasons set forth in the following paragraphs.

C. Brief Facts:

3. The aforesaid Original Application in question was filed by the applicants-petitioners, namely Ashok Kumar Yadav, Riaz Babu and Chhail Behari, seeking directions against the railway authorities regarding their seniority and promotional benefits. The applicants prayed that they should be treated at par with one Mohd. Niyaz, who according to them had secured lower marks and a lower position in the merit list but was engaged earlier than them. They also sought promotional benefits similar to those granted to him.

3.1. The case of the applicants - petitioners before the Tribunal was that they were holders of National Apprenticeship Certificates and were regularised on the post of Helper with effect from 03.02.2014 by order dated 03.03.2014. They submitted representations against the said order and challenged the seniority list circulated on 13.10.2015. According to them, their seniority was not fixed in accordance with earlier directions issued by the Tribunal and the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. They contended that the respondents failed to properly consider their claim and wrongly denied them the benefit of seniority and promotion.

3.2. The respondents opposed the Original Application and stated that the applicants - petitioners could not compare themselves with Mohd. Niyaz because he belonged to the Wireman Trade, whereas the applicants belonged to Fitter and Carpenter Trades. It was argued that separate seniority lists are maintained for different trades and therefore the claim of parity was not legally sustainable.

3.3. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that Mohd. Niyaz had been engaged in service in the year 1990, whereas the applicants - petitioners themselves were appointed only in the year 2014. Therefore, the applicants - petitioners could not claim equality or seniority with a person who had entered into