2008 (6) TMI 578 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a Tribunal established under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short the Act ) can review its decision on the basis of subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger bench or any superior Court or on the basis of subsequent event/development?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Tribunal established under Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act can review its decision based on subsequent orders/decisions/judgments or subsequent events/developments.
2. Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of higher pay scales under the Career Advancement Scheme and if denial of such benefits constituted hostile discrimination.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Tribunal's Power to Review its Decision:
- Legal Framework: The Tribunal's power to review its decision is akin to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. This power can be exercised only on specific grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.
- Case Law and Precedents: The Tribunal cannot review its decision based on a subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench or a superior Court. The explanation added to Order 47 by the 1976 amendment clarifies that a subsequent decision on a question of law cannot be a ground for review.
- Tribunal's Error: The Tribunal erred in reviewing its decision based on the subsequent order in Joydeb Biswas's case and the issuance of the Memorandum dated 13.3.2001, which sanctioned additional posts in Scale No.19 for various State Services. The Tribunal's reliance on subsequent events/developments was misplaced as they occurred after the initial decision and could not be considered for review.
- High Court's Stance: The High Court also erred by approving the Tribunal's direction for extending the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 to the respondents without considering the limitations on the Tribunal's power of review.

2. Entitlement to Higher Pay Scales and Discrimination:
- Respondents' Claim: The respondents claimed entitlement to higher pay scales (Scale Nos.19 and 21) under the Career Advancement Scheme, alleging discrimination as other State Services received these benefits.
- Tribunal's Initial Decision: The Tribunal initially dismissed the respondents' claim, stating that the Scheme was meant for employees without adequate promotional opportunities, and the respondents had already received promotions and were holding the highest posts in their service.
- Review Application: In their review application, the respondents asserted stagnation and discrimination, relying on the subsequent order in Joydeb Biswas's case, which directed the State Government to act on the recommendations made by the Secretary of the Administrative Department.
- Tribunal's Review Decision: The Tribunal, in its review decision, erroneously held that the respondents were discriminated against and directed the State Government to extend the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 to them. The Tribunal's reliance on the subsequent Memorandum dated 13.3.2001 and the order in Joydeb Biswas's case was misplaced.
- High Court's Error: The High Court approved the Tribunal's direction without considering that the respondents had received promotions and were holding the highest posts. The High Court also overlooked the fact that members of three out of 17 State Services had not been given the benefit of Scale No.19 and posts in Scale No.21 were sanctioned only for two services.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining and allowing the review application filed by the respondents. The direction given by the Tribunal for extending the benefit of Scale Nos.19 and 21 to the respondents was legally unsustainable. The High Court's order was also set aside for failing to consider the limitations on the Tribunal's power of review and the factual foundation required to substantiate the plea of discrimination. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.