P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Brajendralal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. - (Central Administrative Tribunal) (18 Jan 2019)

Review is permissible if there is a discovery of a new or important facts or evidence, which was not within applicant's knowledge

MANU/CA/0032/2019

Service

Present Review Application, filed by the applicant of the OA No. 17/2018, is directed against the order of present Tribunal dismissing the Original Application (OA). The Review Application has been filed within the time stipulated under the rules. The Applicant, while working as a part time contingent worker under the Respondents, was selected for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) and he joined as GDS on 2nd May, 1998. Subsequently after being aware of the fact that casual labourers are to be given temporary status, he claimed for such benefit, which was not agreed. The OA filed by him was dismissed vide order.

Under the law review of the order of the Tribunal is permissible under the Rule 1, Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, which specifies limited grounds for permitting such review. The review is permissible if there is a discovery of a new or important facts or evidence, which was not within the applicant's knowledge and which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time of consideration of his OA as provided under Rule 1, Order 47. In this case, the applicant claims that he had earlier submitted a letter dated 2nd May, 1998, by which, he has informed the authorities if he will be entitled for other posts other than EDDA/GDS, then his case should be considered for such post after rejecting his appointment as EDDA/GDS. The applicant argues that he has not relinquished his post of Contingent Waterman in view of this letter dated 2nd May, 1998.

Admittedly, the applicant had left the post of Contingent Waterman and accepted the post of EDDA/GDS on 2nd May, 1998. If there is any benefit that would have been admissible as part time contingent waterman, the same would be available if he would have continued in the said post and after his discontinuation as Contingent Waterman, his claim for the said post would not be tenable as held in the impugned order dated 7th August, 2018.

Further, if the letter dated 2nd May, 1998 had been submitted by the applicant as claimed in the Review Application, it cannot be said that this document was not within the knowledge of the applicant. If his plea that this document was misplaced would-be accepted, the applicant could have claimed about such letter in the OA. Hence, the letter dated 2nd May, 1998 cannot be treated as a new fact or document which was not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of filing the OA even after due diligence. Hence, the grounds mentioned in the Review Application are not permissible grounds for reviewing the impugned order. Accordingly, the Review Application dismissed.

Tags : REVIEW   PERMISSIBILITY   VALID GROUND  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved