The power of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; it cannot be invoked to re-hear a case on merits or correct an order through elaborate reasoning.

Per: HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):

1. This Review Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking review of the order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure RA/1) passed in Original Application No.060/400/2017.

2. By filing the present Review Application, the Review Applicant submits that vide order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure RA/1), the OA has been dismissed by this Tribunal to the extent that the applicant had earlier asked for certain relief and the OA was disposed of with the order as stated above (in para 2 of this order). The department had complied with that order to which the applicant also agreed that it has been complied with. Now it appears that as a fence-sitter, he has moved another OA to grant him actual promotion from the date whereas the reference of DoP&T instructions in OM dated 10.04.1989 as amended by OM dated 27.03.1997 are absolutely clear that the date of promotion will be from the date of joining in that rank. Further, the litigation has to end at some point. These issues were never raised by the applicant in earlier OA filed by him. The review applicant further submits that several errors apparent on the face of the record which are summarized as under:-

(i) In para 9 of the order, the Tribunal has noticed that applicant physically joined as ASW only on 11.06.1997, but did not consider the fact that he was notionally promoted as ASW w.e.f. 01.04.1993 on intervention of orders of this Tribunal and as per law laid in K.B. Rajoria's case, such notional promotion is countable as regular service for further promotions to the post of SW and thereafter for the pay scale of NFSG on 5 years of regular service.

(ii) In para 9, this Tribunal has also observed that after filing OA in 2003, the applicant has come up with another plea with same cause of action which is not correct as there was no cause of action available to the applicant in 2003 when he sought promotion to the post of ASW and was not even aware about the date from which, he would be granted promotion as ASW. Only upon grant of notional promotion as ASW finally in 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.1993, the cause of action has arisen to the applicant to file fresh OA claiming promotion/NFSG at par with junior promoted / appointed after 01.04.1993. The cause of action is different in both the cases.

(iii) The next error in the judgment is about applicability of para 17.10 and 17.11 of DOPT OM dated 10.04.1989. Para 17.10 is general principle that in case promotion is granted in time, but the officer concerned does not join on the promotional post, he would be treated to be in regular service from the date of his actual joining / actual promotion Para 17.10 does not deal with the exceptional and special case like the present one, in which an employee has been denied promotion for number of years wrongly, due to the fault of government and upon intervention of the court is granted promotion retrospectively. The cases of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.B. Rajoria deals with exactly similar issues and will prevail over the general principle laid down in para 17.10 of DOPT OM dated 10.04.1989.

(iv) As far as applicability of para 17.11 is concerned, it also deal with normal promotion and does not deal with cases of retrospective promotion granted upon court orders. Further, it deal with cases relating to DPCs, which is presided over by a member of UPSC whereas in the present case UPSC is not at all involved and therefore para 17.11 of OM dated 10.04.1989 is not applicable in the present case.

(v) Further error has crept in pa