(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. Board has been revised. This is the third round in the final hearing board. None on behalf of the petitioner is present. We have heard Mr Shakeel Qureshi, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr Jaimin Gandhi, learned AGP for respondent No.2.
2. This Special Civil Application has been filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in Review Application No. 12/2012 and M.A. No.85/12 arising out of Original Application No. 246 of 2010 decided on 22.3.2012. By the impugned order, the Review Application has been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal') by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors v. Kamla Sengupta & Anr. (2008 (8) SCC 612) wherein in para 35 the Apex Court has held that the power of review is conferred on the Tribunal only to the extent as provided by Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, but such power cannot be exercised to correct any error or decision on the basis of a decision subsequently rendered by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court nor on mere discovery of some new or important material. The petitioner has not challenged before us the original order passed by the Tribunal. The prayer made in the Review Application was to recall and review its final order dated 23.6.2011 passed in Original Application No.246 of 2010 only to the extent of grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the terminal benefits from September, 2008 to September, 2011. This prayer for interest was not made in the original application whereas in the original order the Tribunal has granted interest @ 6% to the petitioner. The Tribunal in its discretion in the original order dated 23.6.2011 has granted 6% interest. The appellant has not claimed 9% interest when he filed the Original Application. Therefore, whether interest should be granted @ 6% or 9% cannot be the subject matter of review. Thus the question whether interest should be granted @ 9% does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim filed by the petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in the Review Application on 22.3.2012.
3. This writ petition is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[V.M. SAHAI, J.]
msp [G. B. SHAH, J.]