UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Central Ad ministrative Tribunal, Allahabad by order dated 4th November, 1996 accepted the claim of the applicants in O. A. No. 1642 of 1994 and ten other cases with direction to respondents to consider the claim of ap plicants and to give same benefit which is available to the other candidates under the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27th July, 1995 in civil appeal arising out of S. L. P. (C) Nos. 14756-61 of 1993, 11631 of 1994 and 20114 of 1993. Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment in the aforesaid civil appeal set aside the order passed by bench of the Tribunal in O. A. No. 479 of 1992. The Tribunal in para graph No. 8 gave reasons for accepting the claim of the applicants which reads as under:- "o. A. No. 479 of 1993 is one of the cases which has been dismissed by a bench of this Tribunal wherein it has been held that the Mobile Booking Clerks and the Voluntary Tick et Collectors belong to two different categories and that the benefit of Railway Board's circular dated 6-2-1990 is available to Mobile Booking Clerks only and that Voluntary Ticket Collectors are not entitled to the benefit of the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reversed the above finding by setting aside the order of the Tribunal. As we have already noticed above in Usha Kumari Anand's case reliance has been placed on the decision of Sameer Kumar Mukherjee which pertain to Voluntary Ticket Collectors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order whereby the judgment of this Tribunal in O. A. No. 479 of 1993 has been set aside has held that the appeals are disposed of with the direction given in the case of Usha Kumari Anand and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the appellants in accordance with the direc tions contained in paras 37 and 38 of the Tribunal's judgment in that matter. The case of the applicants in these O. As. is similar to that of the O. A. No. 479 of 1993. Hence the controver sy whether the Voluntary Ticket Collectors are entitled to the benefit of the instructions issued by the Railway Board in their letter dated 6-2-1990 is available to the Voluntary Ticket Collec tors or not, stands settled in the aforesaid case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, by setting aside the judgment of this Tribunal in O. A. No. 479 of 1993 and by issuing a direction to the respondents to exemine the case of the ap plicants in accordance with the directions con tained in paras 37 and 38 of Usha Kumari Anand's case put a stamp of approval to the law laid down in Samir Kumari Mukherjee's case. Therefore, there is nothing more for this Tribunal to adjudicate in these applications. The applicants of all these original Ap plications are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. These applications, there fore, will abide by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal referred to above. A copy of this order be placed in the records of all the cases. There will be no order as to costs. " Against the aforesaid order dated 4th November, 1996 present petitioners filed review applications which have been rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 22nd' April, 1997. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN this writ petition, notices were issued to the respondents by order dated 9-2-98 and the implementation of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal impugned in this writ petition was directed to be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing. Respondents have put in appearance and filed counter- affidavit alongwith an application for vacating stay order.

(3.) WE have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties about the maintainability of the writ petition. From perusal of the provisions contained in Cl. (f) of Section 22 (3) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules, there is no doubt that the review application filed by petitioners was main tainable before the Tribunal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sri Gopalbandhu Biswal etc. v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty and others, etc. , J. T. 1998 (3) SC 279 after considering the provisions of Section 22 (3) (f) and Rule 17 has held that power of review which is granted to an Ad ministrative Tribunal is similar to power given to a civil court under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, any person (inter alia) who considers himself aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred can apply for review under Order XLVII, Rule l (1) (a ). An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. In the case before Hon'ble Supreme Court special leave petition to file an appeal was preferred from the judgment of the Tribunal, which was rejected. As a result of the order of the Tribunal became final and binding. Paragraph 8 of the judgment is being reproduced below:- "the power of review which is granted to an Administrative Tribunal is similar to power given to Civil Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, any person (inter alia) who considers himself ag grieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred can apply for review under Order XLVII, Rule l (1) (a ). An appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Tribunal. If an appeal is preferred, the power to review cannot be exercised. In the present case, a special leave petition to file an appeal was preferred from the judgment of the Tribunal in T. A. No. 1 of 1989 to this Court and the special leave petition was rejected. As a result the order of the Tribunal in TA No. 1 of 1989 became final and binding. The rejection of a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. In effect, amounts to declining to entertain an appeal, thus making the judgment and order appealed against. final and binding. Once a spe cial leave petition is filed and rejected, the party cannot go back to the Tribunal to apply for review. In the case of State of Maharashtra and another v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle, JT 1996 (3) SC 567 (1993)3 SCC 403, this Court held that when a special leave petition from the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by a non-speaking order, the main order was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter the power of review cannot be exercised by the Tribunal. The Court said that the exercise of power of review by the Tribunal in such circumstances would be "deleterious to judicial discipline. " Once the Supreme Court has confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal, that becomes final. In Sree Narayana Dhannasanghom Trust v. Swami Prakasananda and others, JT 1997 (5) SC 100; (1997)6 SCC 78, the above decision was reaf firmed. This Court held that after an order of this Court dismissing the S. L. P. in limine from a judgment of the High Court, the High Court cannot review it. The Court followed the earlier judgment in State of Maharashtra and another v. Prabhakar Bhikaji Ingle (supra ). "