Review Application No. 9 of 2012 (in OA No. 14 of 2010) & Civil Contempt Petition No. 49 of 2012 (in OA No. 14 of 2010). Case: 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 2. P.R.S. Chouhan Vs 1. P.R.S. Chouhan, 2. Shri Sudhir Kumar Bhandari and Shri Rahul Dongre. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Review Application No. 9 of 2012 (in OA No. 14 of 2010) & Civil Contempt Petition No. 49 of 2012 (in OA No. 14 of 2010) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri P. Shankaran, Advocate in Review Application No. 9 of 2012 (in OA No. 14 of 2010) and Shri S.K. Nandy, Advocate in Civil Contempt Petition No. 49 of 2012 (in OA No. 14 of 2010) and For Respondents: Shri Vijay Tripathi, Advocate in Review Application No. 9 of 2012 (in OA No. 14 of 2010) and Shri P. Shankaran, Advocate in ... |
| Judges | Dhirendra Mishra, Member (J) and G.P. Singhal, Member (A) |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Rule 47; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 114 |
| Judgement Date | May 21, 2013 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Dhirendra Mishra, Member (J), (Jabalpur Bench)
-
The review-applicants (respondents in Original Application No. 14/2010) (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents") have filed Review Application 9/2012 along with MA No. 697/2012 for condonation of delay and prayed for review/recall of the order dated 23.01.2012 passed in OA No. 14/2010, on the ground that during pendency of the Original Application original applicant P.R.S. Chouhan (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") had exercised his option and opted for Non-Executive Promotion Policy (for brevity "NEPP", which was circulated vide letter dated 23.03.2010. After opting for NEPP Scheme, the applicant has already been extended benefit of 1st financial upgradation from his existing IDA pay scale to the next IDA pay scale w.e.f. 01.10.2004 vide order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure A-4) and thereafter he has further been extended second time bound upgradation under the NEPP w.e.f. 01.10.2011 vide order dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure A-5), and as such the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of upgradation under the Biennial Cadre Review (for brevity "BCR") Scheme. Since the Original Application, as well as counter reply to the Original Application, were filed before promulgation of the NEPP, the facts regarding promulgation of new scheme were not pleaded in their counter reply and inadvertently the aforesaid facts were also not brought to the notice of this Tribunal at the time of final hearing by the respondents as well as by the applicant, though the subsequent two promotions of the applicant under the NEPP Scheme were very much material and would have effect in the out come of the Original Application, as even if it is assumed that the applicant has been granted Grade IV promotion before notification of the new policy in March, 2010 under the old policy the first upgradation under the new policy on the same pay scale, which has been extended to the applicant w.e.f. 1st of October, 2004 will have to be withdrawn. It was incumbent upon the applicant to fairly disclose about his exercising option for NEPP and the fact that he has been given first financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.10.2004 and second financial upgradation w.e.f. 01.10.2011. However, the applicant has not disclosed these material facts at the time of hearing, which had a material bearing in the outcome of the Original Application. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the delay in...
To continue reading
Request your trial