CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR Review Application No.200/12/2024 (in OA 200/09/2020)

st Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 01 day of May, 2024 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Rajesh S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Prasad, aged about 53 years, at present PEX (F&H), R/o B/328, Silicon City, Indore MP 452012 -Applicant V e r s u s

1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information & Boradcasting, South Block, New Delhi 110011.

2. Director General, All India Radio, S-1 (B) Section, Akashvani Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001.

3. Additional Director General, Programme Central Region II, All India Radio, Akashvani Shyamla Hills, Bhopal, MP 482009.

4. Head of Office, All India Radio, Indore MP 452012.

5. Shri Santosh Kumar Agnihotri, PEX, (G&P) All India Radio, Akashvani, Khandwa MP 450001 -Respondents O R D E R (in circulation)

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

This Review Application has been filed by the applicant seeking review of the order dated 08.03.2024, passed in Original Application No.200/09/2020 on the grounds stated in the Review Application. It has also been averred by the applicant that this Tribunal has not decided MA No.224/2023 before passing the final order.

2. From perusal of the order under review, it is found that the aforesaid OA No.200/09/2020 was dismissed after hearing the counsel for the parties at length and perusing the entire documents and the materials placed on record. So far as the applicant’s averment that there is no consideration to MA No.224/2023, it is pertinent to mention that the contention of the applicant in that MA that the respondent No.5 was transferred in place of the applicant due to political influence, this ground has already been taken care of in Para 7 of the order dated 08.03.2024. Hence, even though the said MA was not decided, the grounds raised in the MA have duly been considered by this Tribunal while passing the final order.

3. It may be noted that the power of review available to this Tribunal is the same as has been given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule (1) of the CPC. None of the grounds raised in the Review Application brings it within the scope and purview of review. If in the opinion of the Review Applicants the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous, the remedy lies elsewhere. Moreover, instead of deciding the representation of the respondents (applicants in OA), the Review Applicants are seeking rehearing of this Original Application after two and half years taking shelter of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).3/2020 dated 23.03.2020.

4. On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon’ble Apex court has clearly stated in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596 that: “a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it”. This Tribunal cannot review its order unless the error is plain and apparent. It has clearly been further held by the Hon’ble Apex court in the said case that: “[A]ny other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment”.

5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1995 (1) SCC 170 Meera Bhanja (Smt.) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.) observed that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error