Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This application seeking review of the judgment comes up with an application seeking condonation of delay of around four years and four months. Notwithstanding the delay, we thought it appropriate to look into whether there is any ground to review the judgment, having regard to the submissions of the learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the review petitioners. We have also heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2003. Initially appointed as a lower division clerk on 18.03.1978, under the Bhatinda Zone of Indian Army, he was granted inter-command transfer and posting on 12.06.1982.
Along with him, one Sasi was also brought to the Southern Command from the Western Command. The Tribunal noted that the practice of giving credit to the previous service to displaced Government servants appointed to central services after partition was extended to all categories of persons appointed to central services and the same was prevailing till 01.07.1973, when general principles of seniority have been made applicable. It was noted that, however, those principles were made applicable to the Military Engineering Service only with effect from 15.12.1985 and further it was confined only to the industrial personnel. The applicant, who was initially appointed as lower division clerk on 18.03.1978, was granted the inter-command posting and transfer on 12.06.1982 along with Sasi, who was initially appointed on 01.07.1972. The Tribunal took note of the specific plea of the applicant before it that Sasi could not have been given promotion as upper division clerk with effect from 30.04.1988, without reckoning his seniority from the date of his initial appointment, i.e., on 01.07.1972. The establishment stood admitting that situation. The Tribunal, therefore, took the view that the applicant before it (respondent herein) was one similarly situated, and therefore, the yardstick applied in Sasi's case by the establishment should be made applicable to the applicant as well. It is thus that the original application filed by the respondent herein was allowed by the Tribunal.
3. When the establishment challenged the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the aforesaid facts were taken note of and the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued on 16.02.2010 holding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the final order of the Tribunal. That order was thus affirmed for the aforenoted reasons.
4. Hearing the learned Assistant Solicitor General, we see no ground for review of judgment because, there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any other enabling ground for review of the judgment. Yet, we may record that the anxiety of the establishment appears to be that following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and other decisions, the establishment has started a review of the seniority positions by re-working on the entire matter. The delay in instituting this review petition is also attributed to such situation. That by itself does not persuade us to re-open the judgment in exercise of power of review. We say so for two important reasons. Firstly, the fact remains that as of now, Sasi as well as the respondent, going by the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, have climbed up the ladder in the establishment and have reached various other higher posts. Secondly and more importantly, the disputes were decided upon by the Tribunal and that decision was affirmed by this Court, fundamentally, on the undisputed position that the respondent herein was eligible to be treated at par with Sasi and promotions given to that person. That finding does not, in any manner, impair the establishment from carrying out any drill, which they may do in relation to other members of the staff, without impairing the benefits, if any, that have accrued to the respondent. Obviously, the judgment sought to be reviewed has no precedent value to be applied in any other case, since it rests on the very peculiar facts of the respondent's case qua the case of Sasi.
Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the review petition and the civil miscellaneous application are dismissed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg