SMT. MEENABEN K. SOLANKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH: THE GENERAL MANAGER (E), THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (E), WESTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Tribunal had directed the respondents by order dated 28 -9 -2010 in O.A. No. 311 of 2009 to reconsider the applicants case for appointment on compassionate grounds, on the basis of the family condition of the applicants family. She approached this Tribunal again with O.A. No. 258 of 2011 when the respondent Railway rejected her claim stating that the instructions of the Railway Board prohibits appointment on compassionate ground to the second wife unless the Administration has been informed about such marriage. The aforesaid order of the respondents also was set aside by this Tribunal directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order in terms of the directions in the order in O.A. No. 311 of 2009. This time the respondents decided the case of the applicant by order dated 20 -7 -2012 and found that the financial condition of her family cannot be considered to be in pecuniary distress. Applicant by way of O.A. No. 399 of 2012 again approached this Tribunal challenging the said order dated 20 -7 -2012. This Tribunal dismissed the OA holding that since financial condition of the applicant is an important and material consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds, the findings of the respondents that the applicants family is not in a state of penury cannot be interfered with by this Tribunal.

(2.) THE applicant has now come up with this review application stating several reasons for reviewing the order of this Tribunal such as the impugned order in O.A. No. 399 of 2012 was not passed by the competent authority; without taking into consideration of the meager amount of family pension after about seven years from the death of applicants husband and on a larger number of other grounds. It is also stated by the applicant that there were factual errors committed by this Tribunal. It has to be noted that the grounds for review stated in this RA are styled in such a manner as if the review application has been presented before a Forum higher to this Tribunal, in an argumentative and fault -finding manner.

(3.) ONE of the important principles the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down was that an error which is not self -evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying the exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. If the long argumentative reasons mentioned in this RA are to be considered, one can easily find that what the applicant desires is a fresh hearing of the matter and thereby an adjudication involving a long process of reasoning. Such an exercise by this Tribunal is certainly not an exercise justifying employment of the power under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.