The court acknowledged an error apparent in not considering statutory provisions relevant to pension eligibility for BSNL employees based on prior casual service.

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Review Petition is preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking to review the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2024 in O.P(CAT) No.162/2017.

2. The review petitioner herein is the respondent in OP(CAT)

No.162/2017 of this Court and the applicant in O.A.No.957/2014 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The review petitioner, Janaki C., commenced her service as an Ayah in the Creche under the Telecom District Engineer, Department of Telecommunication (DOT), Palakkad, in 1987. Her initial appointment was on a contingency basis. Following the formation of BSNL in 2000, she was regularized as a Mazdoor in 2001 and retired in 2008. Despite her two decades of service, she was denied pension on the grounds that she had less than ten years of qualifying regular service.

3. The claim of the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that 50% of her past casual/contingency service from 1987 to 2000 should be reckoned as qualifying service, along with her 7 years 8 months of regular service, so as to make her eligible for pension. The Tribunal allowed the claim, relying on the 1993 Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme.

4. While rendering judgment in OP(CAT). No. 162/2017, this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal holding that the 1993 Scheme was inapplicable to DOT employees.

5. The learned counsel submitted that this Court was not apprised of Government Decision No.2 appended to Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which expressly provides that 50% of contingency service will be reckoned towards pension if followed by absorption in regular service. By virtue of Rule 37-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, the said provision applies to BSNL absorbed employees. The learned counsel further submitted that the omission to bring this statutory provision to the notice of this Court constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review. It is submitted that the Tribunal, while allowing the petition had expressly referred to the said provision. Hence, the petitioner prays that the impugned judgment in OP(CAT). No. 162/2017 be reviewed and recalled.

6. Sri. T. Sanjay, learned Standing Counsel for the BSNL has filed a detailed counter. In the counter, it is stated that the Review Petition is not maintainable and the review petitioner has not raised his contention before the Central Administrative Tribunal nor before this Court. The learned counsel would further submit that the review petitioner is trying to reagitate the matter in controversy which has already been adjudicated by this Court under the guise of a review application.

7. Heard.

8. Before we proceed with the discussion, it would be useful to extract Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

“1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court