Review applications must demonstrate new evidence or apparent errors; failure results in dismissal.

Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Judicial Member Hon’ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member MR. PINAKI GUPTA …………Petitioner (original applicant)

-Versus-

EASTERN RAILWAY ………..Opponent (Original respondents)

For the Review Applicants : Mr. B. Bhushan, Counsel For the opposite party : Mr. G. K. Das, Counsel O R D E R Per: Hon’ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member The present Review Application has been filed by the original respondents to review the order passed by this Tribunal dated 23.03.2023 in O.A./00331/2016.

The following relief has been sought in the instant application:-

“a) To adjudicate and decide the prayers made in the Supplementary affidavit regarding the regularization of the suspension period of the applicant from

06.10.1988 to 20.03.2005 on the basis of Supplementary pleadings from 4(n) to (v);.

b) Such other or further order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. In the instant RA, it is the specific grievance of the applicant that while disposing of O.A./331/2016 vide order dated 23.03.2023 with certain directions upon the respondents, this Tribunal did not take into consideration the pleadings of supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant in the O.A.

According to the learned counsel for the applicant, in order to substiantiate the additional prayer made by the applicant, additional materials were placed on record but the same have not been taken into consideration. Hence, the present R.A.

3. In O.A./331/2016, this Tribunal had passed the following order:-

“Since judicial proceedings are currently pending against the applicant, the applicant cannot be granted any promotion in terms o DOPT O.M. No. 22034/4/2012 -Estt. (D) dated 2.11.2012 which, inter alia states that vigilance clearance for promotion can be denied in spect of Government servants in respect of whora prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. However, since the applicant is not currently under suspension and departmental proceedings have not been initiated as yet against him, there is no bar in revising his pay scale in accordance with the revised pay scales that have come into effect following the recommendations of the Vth & VIth Pay Commission, since such revision 's not deemed to be a promotion.”

4. We have perused the present Review Application, along with the material on record.

5. It is noted that the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the applicant was filed on 18.02.2020. The respondents had also filed a counter to the said affidavit, both of which were taken into consideration while passing the final the order dated 23.03.2023. The O.A. was disposed of with the observation that since judicial proceedings was pending against the applicant, the applicant could not be granted promotion in terms of the DoPT OM dated 02.11.2012. However, no bar was placed on stepping up of his pay in accordance with the revised pay scales.

In the instant Review Application, the applicant has not brought before us any new fact that was not taken into consideration by us while passing our order dated 23.03.2023. Moreover, no apparent error on the face of the record has been brought forth by the review applicant herein.

5. The review applicant has failed to establish:

(a) That there are any errors or mistakes apparent on the face of record.

(b)That new or important matters that were not within his knowledge/possession was subsequently furnished in this review application, and, (c) Has not advanced in any other sufficient reason in the light of other specified grounds.

6. The scope of review of an order under order 47 Rule 1 CPC states as follows:

“Any person considering himself aggrieved –

(a) by a decree or or