Review jurisdiction limited to patent errors on record, not merits re-appreciation or appeal in disguise; contempt examines wilful non-compliance, not adequacy of cadre restructuring guided by recommendations.

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):

By filing the present RA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the review applicants (original applicants in the lis) seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) Review the Final order dated 13.03.2020 and direct the ESIC to review their proposed cadre structure and create a cadre structure as per directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal given vide its judgement dated 06.05.2015.

b) Hold the respondents liable for contempt of court on account of non-compliance of order dated 06.05.2015;

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

3. Since the review applicants are seeking review of the order dated 13.03.2020 passed in C.P. No.14/2016, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same as under :-

"1. The applicants herein are working as Pharmacists which carries a pay scale of Pay Band-I of Grade Pay of Rs. 2800 in the respondents ESIC. The applicants had since been granted ACP/MACP benefits and at present, they are in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in Pay Band-III.

2. The applicants herein had earlier preferred the OA No.2151/2014 which was decided vide order dated 06.05.2015 wherein following directions were passed:"

"13. In view of the above position, we allow this OA and direct the Respondent-ESIC to formulate a proper cadre structure for the Pharmacists working under them and thereafter consider the Applicants and other similarly placed persons for promotions to the higher grades so created. They shall also suitably amend the existing Recruitment Rule$ for the post of Pharmacists. While doing so, they may be guided by the recommendations of the Pharmacy Council of India and their own specific requirement. They shall also set in motion of the cadre structure as early as possible but in any case within a period of 4 months from the date of 1·eceipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs."

3. The respondents challenged these directions by filing Writ Petition No.8082/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.11.2017. The order passed by the Hon'ble High Court reads as under:-

"This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner against the order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, by which the O.A. filed by the respondent was allowed.

Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, on the basis of instructions of Mr. Sahay submits that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 06.05.2015 has been complied with inasmuch as three posts have been created. She further submits that promotional channels to higher grade have also been created for the respondents. In view thereof, it is contended that the writ petition is not pressed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that after appropriate information is received, in case the respondents have any grievance, they would seek such remedy in accordance with law.

The writ petition as well as C.MAPPL33506/2016 is dismissed in view of the statement made."

4. The applicants have now preferred the instant CP, alleging that the directions of the Tribunal in Para 2 above, have not been complied with.

5. The applicants pleaded that the Pharmacy Council of India has recommended a 7 level cadre structure starting from level of Pharmacists with Pay Scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and going up to the 7th higher level of Director (Pharmacy), which is equivalent to Director of Medical Education. It is pleaded that despite orders by the Tribunal, this has not been implemented.

6. The respondents had prepared a proposal to create the post of Pharmacist (PB-I with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800) which is Entry Grade. Thereafter, Sr. Pharmacis