Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1035 (PAT)

Kamal Nayan Sharma v. Union Of India

2006-11-09

ABHIJIT SINHA, NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the orders, as contained in annexures 1 and 2 dated 17.10.2000 and 28.4.2004, respectively, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as "Tribunal"). 3. Vide judgment dated 17.10.2000, the Tribunal dismissed O.A. No. 569 of 1996 and by subsequent order dated 28.4.2004 the review application filed by the applicants was also dismissed. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Gautam Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners, that a series of litigations were filed before the Tribunal by similarly situated persons, who were casual employees of the Central Excise Department and were terminated by common order and some of the similarly situated persons approached the Tribunal in Q.A. Nos. 358 of 1995 and 59 of 1996 which, ultimately, were disposed of by the Tribunal and set aside the order of termination and directed the authorities concerned to consider for regularisation of their services in accordance with 1993 Scheme. 5. We are now informed by Mr. Gautam Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 358 of 1995 and 59 of 1996 now finally have been approved by the Apex Court in S.L.A. (Civil) C.C. No. 4885 of 1999, as contained in annexure 8. 6. It is further contended by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 358 of 1995 and 59 of 1996 were brought on record for appreciation of the case of the present petitioners, as the Tribunal without recording a finding about those cases dismissed the claim of the petitioners, a review application thereafter was filed, which also was dismissed without adjudicating the question raised by the parties. 7. From the orders passed by the Tribunal, it appears that there is no finding as to whether the facts of O.A. Nos. 358 of 1995 and 59 of 1996 were identical to those of the present petitioners. It further appears that the Tribunal while disposing of the review application erred in holding that the review application is in nature of appeal and this Court sitting in review jurisdiction does not have power to set aside the judgments passed by the Division Bench earlier. 8. It further appears that the Tribunal while disposing of the review application erred in holding that the review application is in nature of appeal and this Court sitting in review jurisdiction does not have power to set aside the judgments passed by the Division Bench earlier. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, tried to demonstrate before the Court that the case at hand and that of O.A. Nos. 358 of 1995 and 59 of 1996 are not identical, and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the present petitioners. 9. It is manifest from the materials on record that after passing of the final order by the Tribunal the applicants applied for review of earlier order making out a case of review; as such, the review application could not be termed as an appeal filed by the applicants. 10. By virtue of the provisions laid down under sec. 22(3)(f) of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its order. At the same time, in the Rules framed to govern the proceedings of the Tribunal in the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rules") identical provision has been provided in Rule 17 of the Rules empowering the Tribunal to review its order. 11. In view of the statutory provisions, as referred to above, the Tribunal has wholly erred in holding that it does not have powers to set aside its earlier judgments and allow the relief claimed by the applicants; as such, the review application was well maintainable and is required to be heard afresh. 12. In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal refusing to review its earlier order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to it to rehear the review application and dispose of the same after hearing the parties in accordance with law.