Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1680
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH Review Application No.17/2017 in OA No.427/2012 Dated this the 05th day of July, 2021 CORAM:
Hon’ble Sh. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon’ble Sh. Dr. A.K. Dubey, Member (A)
1. Mr. Bharatkumar Dahyalal Patel Son of Dahyalal Patel Age: above 47 years, Residing at: Block no. 29/403, Utsav Apartment, Opp Bhavsar Hostel, Navavadaj, Ahmedabad – 380 013.
2. Mr. Dilipkumar Mohanlal Solanki Son of Mohanlal Solanki Age: above 58 years, Residing at: A/107, Borsali Apartment, Khanpur, Ahmedabad – 380 001.
3. Mr. Girishkumar Jayantilal Shah Son of Jayantilal Shah, Age: above 48 years, Residing at: C-403, Sahjanad Residency, Opp. Halmet Circle, Memnagar Road, Ahmedabad – 380 052.
4. Mr. Atulkumar J. Trivedi Son of Jagdishchandra Trivedi Age: above 54 years, Residing at: 6, Chaudhari Flat, Paladi Gam, Ahmedabad: 380 007 5. Smt. Reema Girishkumar Shah Wife of Girishkumar Shah Age: above 53 years, Residing at: C-403, Sahjanad Residency, Opp: Halmet Circle, Memnagar Road, Ahmedabad – 380 052.
6. Mr. Bharatkumar Vrajlal Patel Son of Vrajlal Patel Age: abpve 47 years, Residing at: A/4, Sidhi Vinayak flat, Patidar Society, Junavadav, Ahmedabad – 380 013.
7. Mr. Rajesh Pitambardas Acharay, Son of Pitambardas Acharay, Age: above 49 years, Residing at: 6, Narsinh park society, Nr. Ankur, Naranpura, Ahmedabad – 380 013.
8. Smt. Ruthamma Setunadhavan Age: above 44 years, Residing at: H/304, Sarvodaya-II, Nr. Pavapuri Circle, Post- Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad – 380 061.
9. Mr. Shailedra Mahendra Sharama Son of Mahendra Sharma Age: above 49 years, Residing at: A/27, Upasna Society Ghodasar khas, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad – 380 050.
10. Mr. Hementkumar Jasvantlal Shah Son of Hasvantlal Shah Age: above 53 years, Residing at: B-303, vrajdeep Apartment, Nr. L.G. Corner, Opp. Dipandra Flat, Maninagar, Ahmedabad – 380 008. 11. Mr. Akshay Vaman Borikar Son of Vaman Borikar Age: above 44 years, Residing at: A/16, Krishna Kunj Society, Near Smutimandir, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad - 380 030.
12. Smt. Kashmira Jankbhai Shah Wife of Janakbhai Shah Age: above 44 years, Residing at: 62, Kameshwer Park, Ghodasar kanas, Ahmedabad – 380 030.
13. Mr. Nandkishor Somabhai Vanzara Son of Somabhai Vanzara Age: above 56 years, Residing at: A/131, Girivrund Society, Opp. Kubershavar Mahadev, Shaijpur Boge, Ahmedabad – 382 345. 14. Mr. Dolatsing Sonsinh Makwana Son of Sonsinh Makawan, Age: above 62 years, Residing at: Vadvasa, Tal Prantij, Dist. Sabarkantha.
15. Mr. Harsadbhai Kantilal Bhavsar, Son of Kantilal Bhavsar, Age: above 63 years, Residing at: Upliseri dhalni pore, Astodiya, Ahmedabad.
16. Mrs. Pravinaben Syamlal Desai Wife of Syamlal Desai Residing at: C-203 Anurag Residency, Near Memnagar Petrol Pum, Memnagar, Ahmedabad – 380 052.
…Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. P H Pathak)
VS 1. Union of India Notice to be served through The Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 011. 2. The Additional Director (CGHS), Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 011. 3. The Additional Director CGHS, 2nd Floor, S. R. House, Opp. Mount Carmel School, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380 009.
…Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per: Hon’ble Dr.A.K.Dubey Member (A)
1. The applicants have filed this Review Application seeking recall of the order in the OA No.427/2012 dated 27.07.2017 mainly on the following grounds:- 1.1 The order impugned in OA 427/2012 was passed without observing the principles of natural justice. In course of hearing in that OA, it was submitted by the counsel for the applicants that in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order in the case of Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway, Dinapore & Ors. v. K.S.Kashevi & Ors. and also in view of the DoP&T letter dated 10.06.2015 whereby the demands of the applicants were accepted, the matter should have been dealt with in that light. Applicants contend that the tribunal passed the order in that OA without hearing on merit.
1.2 The arguments were heard on 07.07.2017 and the decision was rendered on 27.07.2017 and in this long gap, the Tribunal had lost sight of everything including the two points mentioned above.
1.3 The Tribunal forgot that the matter was argued on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
1.4 The applicants have also submitted that this Tribunal had passed the order in OA 427/2012 without referring to the actual arguments and quoting the contentions from the mouth of the counsel.
1.5 That the applicants’ advocate had read out the operative portion of the order in Rafique Masih’s case and had submitted that the applicants were all Class III employees’ and no recovery could be made from them. But due to lapse of long time, the Tribunal passed the judgment without taking above quotes into account.
2 In their reply, the respondents denied the review applicants’ contention and arguments in this review application. Respondents contended that the main issue in OA 427/2012 had been dealt with and incorporated in various paragraphs of the order of this Tribunal dated 27.07.2017 and therefore, there was no need to recall it or review the matter.
3 In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the review applicants reiterated the submission that the applicants were not heard by the Tribunal and the matter was reserved for orders; the issue discussed in the hearing was limited to whether principles of natural justice were observed while issuing the impugned order or not. In course of this review hearing also, the learned counsel drew the attention of the Supreme Court order quoted above, Divisional Superintendent, Western Railway, Dinapore & Ors. v. K.S.Kashevi & Ors. His contention is that since the matter was not heard on merits, it should be recalled and heard yet again. The most important thing was that the applicant was not given any opportunity of being heard before recovery of the amount even as in view the judgment in Rafique Masih case, recovery should not have been made.
4 Learned Standing counsel for the respondents did not agree with the contention of the applicants’ counsel and reiterated the points that the final order in OA No.427/2012 with OA 343/2012 dated 27.07.2017 had covered all the relevant points and thus it was in order.
5 Para 34 of the order indicates about the settlement of the retiral dues of the applicant vide order dated 09.12.2016 of the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel drew attention to para 17 of the order in OA 427/2012 with OA 343/2016 and argued that opportunity was given to all the affected employees; para 17 actually indicated the course of subsequent action too. She also drew this Tribunal’s attention to the paras 26 and 27 of the order in which, the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s in Union of India & Ors. v. All India CGHS Employees Association & Ors. had been taken into account and W.P. (Civil) No.8515/2014 too had been referred to. Therefore, the order dated 27.07.2017 had dealt with all relevant points.
6 Heard the arguments of the counsel for both sides, and carefully perused the order of this Tribunal in OA 427/2012 with OA No.343/2016 impugned here. Apart from the arguments which have alread
