The scope of review is limited; an error not self-evident cannot justify a review, and salary recovery after significant time is arbitrary and illegal.

ORDER (In Circulation)

Per: Hon’bleJayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member This RA has been filed by the review applicant (applicant in original lis) seeking review of the Order dated 11.11.2024 passed in O.A No.62/2022 by this Tribunal, the operative part of the said Order reads as under:-

“6. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to accept the request of the applicant. Accordingly, to justify her claim to retain her higher pay scale, liberty is granted to the applicant to file comprehensive representation before the Competent Authority within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Further, the respondents are directed that on receipt of such representation of the applicant examine/re-examine the grounds stated therein without influence of impugned order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure-A/1), 03.02.2022 (Annexure-A/2) and in accordance with extant rules and the policy in vogue.

It is expected that the respondents shall decide the representation of the applicant as directed, expeditiously not later than 90 days from the date of receipt of comprehensive representation and intimate the decision to the applicant forthwith. If the respondents accept the claim of applicant, the applicant may be granted all consequential benefit including refund of recovered amount if any.

7. In view of the above, the present OA stands disposed off. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stands disposed off. No order as to costs.”

2. The review applicant has now in this Review Application praying for a review of the aforesaid Order passed by the Division Bench on 11.11.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the review applicant stated in the RA that the Tribunal erred in recording that the applicant intended to file a comprehensive representation before the Competent Authority. No such intention was ever expressed, particularly since the judgments cited in para 5.1 of the order were already within the respondents’ knowledge, yet they proceeded to pass orders of reversion and refixation in disregard of those settled legal positions. Therefore, there was no occasion or reason for the applicant to seek relief again from the very department that had already acted contrary to binding judgments. Moreover, after receiving the applicant’s reply to the show cause notice, the respondents have already passed the impugned orders. In view of this, the order under review is liable to be appropriately modified.

3.1 Further, it is stated that despite being fully aware of the settled legal position, the respondents proceeded to recover a hefty amount from the applicant’s salary/dues, demonstrating sheer disregard for the rule of law and patent arbitrariness. Even after the applicant brought the legal position to their notice through representations, the respondents persisted in their actions. Such conduct warranted strict action, including exemplary costs and interest on the amount arbitrarily recovered and retained, rather than directing the applicant to submit another representation and be subjected to a fresh round of litigation.

3.2 It is also stated that even otherwise also the pay fixation and consequential benefits which were granted to applicant around the year 2008 cannot be disturbed after almost 12 years by the department and under no circumstances, any recovery be made. The said issue is also covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (White washer) reported in (2005) 4 SCC 334.

3.3 It is further submitted in the Review Application that even if the respondents eventually complied with the settled legal position, the applicant suffered undue harassment through arbitrary recovery, refixation of pay and pension at a lower stage, and delayed payment of retiral dues—all