ORDER

The review petitioners were the respondents in OA No.228/2016, which was decided by this Tribunal vide its order dated 24.05.2017. The applicants/review petitioners have filed the present Review Application under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking review of the order dated 24.05.2017.

2. Under Section 22(3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal has power to review its own decision.

3. Heard Shri Gaurav Jain, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Shri C.B.Sharma, learned counsel for the non petitioners.

4. The review petitioners state that in their written reply to OA No.228/2016 they had specifically pleaded in respect of Applicant No.5, i.e. Sandeep Singor that he was working with the department since June 2008 till 30.03.2014 and was subsequently jailed for wrongdoing. They aver that the Hon’ble courts, while delivering the judgment in many other cases (3)

relating to casual workers, have categorically held that daily wage workers whose conduct and antecedents are not correct are not to be extended the benefit of favourable court orders. On this ground, they contend that since the said Applicant No.5, Shri Sandeep Singor concealed the true facts and circumstances of his case from the Tribunal, Original Application No.228/2016 is liable to be dismissed, at least in so far as it applies to him.

5. The petitioners aver that their pleadings with regard to Applicant No.5 were not taken into account by this Tribunal when passing the order under review and that this omission is tantamount to being an error on the face of record. Accordingly, they pray that the impugned judgment/order of 24.05.2017 passed by this Tribunal be modified to the extent of dismissing the OA filed by Applicant No.5, Sandeep Singor so that the operative part of this order, (i.e. Para-5), does not apply to Shri Sandeep Singor.

6. Per contra, Shri C.B.Sharma, learned counsel for the non- petitioners, (the applicants in OA No.228/2016), points out that Para-5 of the order dated 24.05.2017 passed in OA No.228/2016 reads as follows:

“5. Considered the aforesaid contentions and perused the record. It appears that the case of the applicants is similar to those applicants in the case of Jeevan Singh Gehlot & Others and Mahendra Singh & Others (supra), therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid orders and judgments (4)

at the earliest, but keeping in view that there are number of applicants in the OA, decide the same within a period of four months. The OA is disposed of with the above directions, with no order as to costs.”

7. Shri C.B.Sharma argues that the operative portion of this order merely enjoins upon the respondents, (petitioners in this RA), to “consider the cases of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid orders and judgments” and “decide the same within a period of four months”. Thus the petitioners are at liberty to consider whatever else may be material to the case of Applicant No.5 Shri Sandeep Singor in addition, while complying with the direction of the Court. Shri C.B.Sharma further argues that the scope for review is a very limited one in law and that in the present case there is no evidence whatsoever of any error on the face of the record either by way of commission or by omission. Accordingly, he prays that the Review Application be dismissed.

8. I have carefully considered the averments made by learned counsels for the review petitioners and the non petitioners.

9. On perusal of the record and consideration of the arguments propounded by learned counsel for the parties, what emerges undisputed in this case is that the direction given in the impugned order/judgment of 25.04.2017 is limited to the cases of the applicants in the OA in question being considered in the light of the orders referred to in the cases of Jeevan Singh Gehlot and (5)

Others vs. Union of India & Others and Mahendra Singh & Others vs. U