STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. KAMAL SENGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a Tribunal established under Section 4 of the administrative Tribunals Act (for short 'the Act') can review its decision on the basis of subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger bench or any superior Court or on the basis of subsequent event/development is the question which arises for determination of this appeal filed by the State of West Bengal and others against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, whereby the said high Court declined to interfere with order dated 25. 9. 2001 passed by the West bengal Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in R. A. No. 26 of 1998.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the aforementioned question are as under :-

(3.) SHRI Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the judgments of this Court in Indian Charge Chrome (2005air SCW 1998)Ltd. vs. Union of India [2005 (4) SCC 67], Board of Control for (2005air SCW 230)Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club [2005 (4) SCC 741] and k. T. Veerappa vs. State of Karnataka[2006 (9) SCC406]and ar- (2006 AIRSCW 2l97)\ gued that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality by reviewing order dated 25. 2. 1997. Learned counsel further argued that failure of the appellants to sanction posts in Scale Nos. 19 and 21 for members of the service resulted in hostile discrimination between similarly situated persons and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed them to extend the benefit of those scales to the respondents. Shri Mehta pointed out that order passed in Joydeb Biswas's case was relied upon by the Tribunal for the limited purpose of reiterating the settled legal position that the recommendations made by the secretary of the Administrative Department are binding on the State Government and argued that this Court may not interfere with the orders under challenge on the ground that the Tribunal did not advert to the grounds of review enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Shri Mehta emphasized that the respondents were stagnating on the same posts and were drawing salary in the same pay scale since 1982 and argued even though this fact was clearly discernible from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Tribunal failed to consider the same and dismissed the transferred application on the specious ground that the State Government had the discretion to prescribe different pay scales for different posts and services. Learned counsel then referred to Memorandum dated 13. 3. 2001 to show that the State Government suo mom sanctioned posts in Scale no. 19 for different services including the one to which the respondents belonged and argued that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality by taking cognizance of the said Memorandum for the purpose of recording a positive finding on the issue of discrimination in the matter of grant of higher pay scales to similarly situated persons.