,i:

r.,(d.filap

Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench 2010' MondaY the 26th daY of JulY'

Present: Hon'ble Mr. M. Kanthaiah'

and l-lon'ble Mrs' O.P'soJ"tt"'

Judicial Member Administrative Member

nY of lndiaReP. Union General 1 . The Director ESI Corporatton C.l.GRoad' Office Hqrs. 002 Delhi-110 New ShriA.K. Srivastava ESICorPoration Director(E.l) HqrsOfficeCIGRoad 002' NewDelhi-110
3. Smt. Manju ChakraborthY Joint Director RegionalOffice Mumbai.

in OA .... Applicantin RAJRespondents

.,VS

R. Natarajan Mr.C.RamachandramoorthY

in OA in RAJAPPlicant ResPondent in RA the APPlicants Codirsetfor

Order:Pronounced Judicial lVlember. by the Hon'bleMr. M. Kanthaiah, Respondents 1,2 and 4 in the mainOA havefiledthis Review the order Application underRule 17 of CAT Procedure Rules,1987to review of this Tribunal of with a prayerfor dismissal dated30.4.2010 in OA 688/08, the OA on the ground listdated24.1.2008 thatthe impugned orderof seniority in the main OA is valid,legaland enforceable. reviewof the While seeking ordersof this Tribunal has takennumberof dated30.4.2010, the applicant groundsin questioning of the order of this Tribunaldated the correctness 30.4.2010. 2 3 The matter hasbeentaken uo in circulation. hereinwho is the The brieffactsof the case are that the respondents

final applicant in the mainOA filedthe OA with a prayer to quashthe revised Directors and also seniority listdated24.1.08(Annexure A-4 in OA )of Deputy consequential Office Order No.39/08dated 10.3.2008AnnexureA-2),

promoting Director Directors/Joint 6 Deputy Directors to the Gradeof Regional and on regular of Review DPC/UPSC basis basing on the recommendation for issueof direction on the groundthat of the applicant to savethe interest A-3, the whilefinalising list dated 17.10.2006 final seniority the provisional authorities have committed adopted unfair practiceand also irregularity, precedent ignored condition etc. 4 this After completion of pleadings and after hearingboth parties,

Tribunalallowedthe claim of the applicantin respectof impugnedfinal OA was allowed. A-4) and accordingly seniority listdated24.1.z}}9(Annexure 1,2 and 4 for reviewof Thereafter this RA has been filed by the respondents the orderof this tribunal on the groundthat CAT, Principal dated30.4.2010 Bench, the applicanthereinie NewDelhivide directed its orderdated14.7.05 on receipt of the ESI corporation listwithin3 months, to re castthe seniority and orderin accordance in DOPTOM dated29.2.2000 with the clarification

",-<-

keepinginviewtheconstraintfacedbytheadministrationafterreferringthe mattertoDoPT,itwasnecessitatedforthedepartmentforfina|isingof of relevant But without proper appreciation senioritylist dated 24'1'2008' points'thisTribunalinterferedwiththerevisedsenioritylistbasingonan irrelevantpoints.ltisa|sooneofthegroundsthatthesubjectmatterinthis oAispendingonthefileofHon,bleHighCourtofDelhiinWP5433/06in oA2637|2004datedl4.T.2oo5andfurtherthisTribunalhasfailedto appreoiatethatoA420/ch/08filedbeforeCATChandigarhBenchwas list dated of the impugnedseniority dismissedon 5.3'2010in respect 24'l.z[osbutthisTribunalhasnottakenthatintoconsiderationwhilepass|ng order. 5lnrespectoftheimpugnedrevisedfina|seniority|istdated24.1'2008 (AnnexureA.4)ofDeputyDirector,theapp|icanthastakengroundinrespect of both partiesthis on the pleadings of certainirregularities and basing the the oA, statingwhetherwhere Tribuna|has framedpointsfor deciding respondentscorporationwhi|efina|izingtheSeniorityListdated24.l'2008 (AnnexureA-4)committeeanyirregularity,wrongandignoredcondition orecedentwhichamountsforsettingasidetheimpugnedrevisedorderand givento thoseofficers promotions regurar alsoto set asidethe consequential while videofficeorderdated Directors Directors/Joint in the gradeof Regional 30.g.0BontherecommendationofthereviewDPC/DPO.Whiledecidingthe saidquestion,thisTribunalhasnotgoneintothemeritsoftheearlieroAsin OANO.420/0B,CAT,ChandigarhBench'OA2637rc4onthefileofthe of appea|ie WP in respect Bench,New Dqlhiand a|sonot touched Principa| HighCourtNewDethi on thefile of Hon'ble No.5433
When the disputetnvolvedin the OA for quashinghe impugnedrevised

senioritylistdated24.l,2oo}isbasingonthe|imitedpoints,exceptlng discussionorfindingfromthisTribunalonearlierproceedingsbeforethe benchhave not BenchNew Delhiand also CAT chandigarh T, Principal
-----?,_

\t,

4,

beentouched for any discussion and theyare alsonot withinthe scopeof

this

RA for deciding the main disputeinvolved in this oA. This Tribunal, whire deciding the issue, discussed in detail, in respect of the claimsof the parties and gaveits finding witha reasoned order. In suchcircumstances, the claimof the applicant that this Tribunal has not considered the earlier decisions of the cAT Principal Bench and chandigarh Benchand alsopendency of the matter before the Hon'ble HighCourtNew/Delhiare notat ll relevant eitherfor taking decision in theoA or for reviewing theorder of theTribunal dated30.4.2010. 7 The scopeof reviewas provided underorder 47 of Ririe 1 and2 is very

limited for interference of the Tribunal onlyin caseof anytypographical erroror error apparent on the face of the record. But the groundstaken by the

applicant in the Review Applicationis beyond the scopeof reviewand also amounts to re-appraisal of leadings and appreciation of the discussion which is within the scopeof appear andthe sameis notpermissibre underreview. I ln viewof the abovecircumstances, thereare no justified grounds for

review of the orderof thistribunal dated30.4.2010 as provided underRule47 of Rule1 and2 of CPCand thusthe RA is liable for rejection. 9 In the resutt, the RA is rejected.

,f#:#]
,1.i:/ .n"q116

#rii *1 v:;
WZr

.*,i.l
DE])['T