Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit the re-opening of a case for the purpose of re-arguing the merits or re-evaluating evidence.

RA No. 04 of 2019

With Review Application No.16 of 2019

2. Surendra Nath Pandey, S/o Late R.K. Pandey, R/o 211J, Shatabdipuram, Jungle Salikram (behind Fatima Hospital), Gorakhpur- 273014. (Deceased)

1/1.Smt. Girija Pandey w/o late Surendra Nath Pandey, R/o 211J, Shatabdipuram, (behind Fatima Hospital), Jungle Salikram, Shivpur Gorakhpur-.

1/2 .Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, S/o late Surendra Nath Pandey.

R/o as mentioned above.

All the newly applicant/Respondents are legal heir of the original applicant i.e. Surendra Nath Pandey.

.... Review Applicant By Advocate: Shri M.K. Dhrubvanshi

Versus

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi & ors. ....Respondents

By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):

Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the review applicant (respondents in OA) and Shri M.K. Dhrubvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents (applicant in OA) are present.

3. Both the reviews are countered to each other so it was heard jointly and common order is being passed.

4. The Review Application No.04/2019 has filed by Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents of Original OA on 16.01.2019 and another Review Application No. 16/2019 filed by Shri M.K. Dhrubvansi, counsel for the applicant of original application praying for review of the order dated 06.12.2018.

5. This review application No.04 of 2019 has been filed by the review applicant (respondents in the OA) against the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No.512 of 2012 on 06.12.2018 whereas the OA was allowed. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced below:-

"For the reasons as discussed above, we direct the respondents to promote the applicant on the Grade A/IRTS on proforma basis with effect from the date prior to his date of retirement from service i.e. prior to 31.12.2002, on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC held by the UPSC in May, 2004 for vacancies for the year 2002-03 and to fix his pay on notional basis, with consequential pensionary benefits including arrear pension payable as per the rules. We are unable to interfere with the findings of the DPCs relating to the applicant's promotion, which were held by the UPSC since there is nothing on record to show that the findings of the DPCs with regard to the applicant's eligibility for promotion to IRTS were incorrect or vitiated. Respondents are directed to comply with this order within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Accordingly O.A. is allowed in part. No order as to costs."

6. The respondents submitted that although the applicant was given ad hoc promotion to Group 'A'/IRTS, he was not selected for regular promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The applicant challenged the supersession of his juniors by filing OA No. 1315/2000, which was disposed of with liberty to submit a fresh representation. After considering his representation, the Review Committee found that for the vacancy year 1993– 94, the applicant had only a "Good" grading, while other officers had higher gradings, and therefore he was not recommended for promotion. A Review DPC held on 10.11.2011 also considered his case for the vacancy year 2002–03 but did not recommend him for promotion. The respondents further argued that the applicant is not in service since 2002 and his claim was barred by limitation, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand