Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from the appellant M. Ganeshan's service conditions in the Union of India administration. He had been appointed as a Group 'C' employee in 1983 through a selection process reserved for Group 'D' in-house candidates. Ganeshan approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, seeking assured career progression benefits. The Tribunal allowed his original application on 14 December 2009, holding that his appointment was a direct recruitment and not a promotion, and thus he was entitled to first ACP benefit from 1999 when the scheme came into existence, and not the second ACP as contended by the administration. The Union of India challenged this order before the High Court by way of a writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on 16 March 2010, after examining records and confirming that the appointment was a fresh direct recruitment, and noting that three similarly circumstanced colleagues had received the first ACP benefit, though the court added that it was an additional ground. Subsequently, the Union of India filed a review petition, arguing that the benefit to the six similarly placed employees had been recalled by a review Departmental Promotion Committee, thus the basis of parity no longer existed. On 19 July 2013, the same High Court allowed the review, recalling the earlier order of dismissal and directing that the pecuniary benefit extended to the six employees be also extended to the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave, which was granted on 14 December 2016. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court had erred in exercising its review jurisdiction by recalling its earlier order that was based on merits and not solely on parity. The Supreme Court analyzed the earlier High Court order and found that it contained detailed findings about the nature of appointment and the entitlement to first ACP, with parity being only an additional ground. The review court had proceeded on a mistaken notion that the dismissal was solely on parity. The Supreme Court held that the error was apparent on the face of the record, as the grounds for review were not substantiated and the earlier order had not been challenged on merits. Consequently, the appeal was allowed; the Supreme Court set aside the impugned review order dated 19 July 2013 and restored the High Court's order dated 16 March 2010 dismissing the writ petition. The respondents were directed to implement the Tribunal's order within three months.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Assured Career Progression (ACP) Benefits - Direct Recruitment - Central Administrative Tribunal, 1985, Sections 14, 15 - The appellant's appointment as Group C employee was held to be a fresh direct recruitment, entitling him to first ACP benefit from the date of scheme's existence, not second ACP. The High Court in its order dismissing the writ petition had recorded findings on merits regarding the nature of appointment and ACP entitlement. The review court erred in assuming the dismissal was solely on parity. Held that the review jurisdiction was improperly exercised as the grounds for review were not made out and the error was apparent on the face of the record (Paras 5-8). B) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Scope of Review - Constitution of India, Article 136 - The High Court allowed review on the ground that the benefit earlier extended to six similarly circumstanced employees was later recalled, thus altering the parity that was the basis of the earlier order. However, the Supreme Court found that the earlier order dismissing the writ petition was based on a detailed examination of records and contained findings on merits, not solely parity. Recall of the dismissal order based on a mistaken notion that parity was the sole ground constituted an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference under Article 136. Held that the review petition was allowed erroneously and the order was set aside (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing the review petition by recalling its earlier order dismissing the writ petition, given that the earlier order was not solely based on parity but contained findings on merits of the employee's entitlement to ACP benefits.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 19-07-2013 allowing the review petition and recalling the earlier order is set aside. The High Court's order dated 16-03-2010 dismissing the respondents' writ petition is restored. The respondents are directed to give effect to the Tribunal's order dated 14-12-2009 within three months. No costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised by re-appreciating findings on merits once the order is not challenged
- error apparent on face of record arises when court proceeds on mistaken notion of sole ground being parity
- findings of fact not challenged in review petition cannot be overturned in review
- High Court's review order recalling earlier dismissal based on parity when merits were decided is unsustainable.
