Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal to substitute a view or re-evaluate the merits of a decision.

CURT.AT.ANCo.K 2 B60E/N0C0H07, C oUf T20T2A6C K

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS , MEMBER (Admn.):

1. In terms of the provisions, this RA has been placed on circulation for consideration.

2. The Original Application No. 745/2022, filed by Sri Chaitan Mohanty (respondent in this RA), was allowed by this Tribunal vide order da“t.e9d. I1n7so.1fa2r. 2a0s2 5m weriitth ids irceocntcioenrn aesd u, nthdee rr: e spondents/Ld. Counsel for the respondents have taken the stand that in terms of the rules [para 171 IREM Vol.I and para 171 (5)] appointment from the post of Jr. Account Assistant (JAA) in pay of Rs. 1200-2040/- to Accountant Assistant Rs. 1400- 2600/- is a promotion, which can be offset against financial upgradation. In the case of V.Venkatraman (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP No. 9422/2011 on 04.01.2012 simplisitter under Article 136 of Constitution of India without laying down any law and, thus, it does not mean that Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the order of the Lower Court because when the court merely dismisses Special Leave Petition without going into the merit of the matter, it does not qualify as a binding precedence and to fortify such stand they have taken the recourse of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Kunhayammed & Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr, (2000) 6 SCC 359, and V.M.Salgaokar & Bros (P) Ltd Vs CIT, (2000) 5 SCC 373. Hence, according to them, the decision in the case of V.Venkatraman (supra) has no application to the case in hand, especially, when the said decision was rendered by the CAT, Madras Bench/Hon’ble High Court of Madras without taking into cognizance of the statutory provision that appointment from JAA to AA is a promotion and is offset against the financial upgradation. Similar was the stand taken insofar as decisions rendered by this Bench in the cases of Sri Parameswar Biswal Sri Rabinarayan Satpathy (supra) and upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

10. According to the respondents, the applicant while working as Sr. TIA retired from service in the afternoon of 28.02.2023. He was allowed the pay scale of Rs. 1400- 2600/- w.e.f. 26.07.1991 not by virtue of holding the post of Clerk Grade-I (redesignated as JAA) but on promotion to higher functional post of Accounts Assistant as per RBE No. 158/1987 and RBE No. 222/1987 having fulfilled the conditions while he was continuing in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/-.

11. In RBE Nos. 158/1987 and 222/1987, the Railway Board while introducing higher functional scale of Rs. 1400- 2600/- in accounts cadre to the extent of 80% of the post of Clerk Grade-I in pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- also laid down that staff in Grade 1200-2040/- will be eligible for promotion to higher grade, after minimum three years service in pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- having passed Appendix-IIA Examination. The eligible staff promoted will also have their pay fixed under Rule 2018-B [FR 22(C)]- R.I. Therefore, since change of scale of pay from 1200-2040/- to 1400-2600/- is a promotion, the same was rightly counted as offset of financial upgradation. Therefore, there being no infraction or infirmity in the decision, this OA is liable to be dismissed.

12. Ld. Counsel for the applicant taking us through the decided matters has submitted that the points raised by the respondents in the counter are obsolete and therefore, this matter is fully covered by the earlier orders more so when the respondents did nto dispute the fact that the scale of Rs. 1200-2040/- was upgraded to 1400-2600/- by way of restructuring.

13. We have considered the submissions and perused the records.

14. Although we find the stand of the respondents that this OA suffers from delay and lac