Review Application No. 07 of 2013 in Original Application No. 1502 of 2011. Case: Union of India through Secretary (Shipping) Government of India, The Director General of Shipping, Mumbai (Maharashtra) and Assistant Godi Prabhandhak, Shram Prashasan Mumbai Port Trust (O.B.L.) Vs Smt. Anwari Begam. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberReview Application No. 07 of 2013 in Original Application No. 1502 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: Sri M.K. Sharma and Sri Jitendra Nayak, Advocates and For Respondents: Sri Swayamber Lal, Advocate
JudgesS.S. Tiwari, Sr. J.M./HOD
IssueAdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 14(2)
Judgement DateFebruary 28, 2014
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


S.S. Tiwari, Sr. J.M./HOD

  1. This review application has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Mr. D.C. Lakha, Administrative Member in O.A. No. 1502 of 2011-Smt. Anwari Begam vs. Union of India and others. The brief facts (for the purpose of this Review Application) are that Smt. Anwari Begam filed O.A. No. 1502 of 2011 to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to settle the family pension of applicant and other dues payable to her and paid to the applicant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of due amount to the date of actual payment. This O.A. was finally decided on merits by the Hon'ble Single Member holding that the applicant is entitled to family pension and other dues payable to her with interest at the prevalent rate from the date amount became due till the date of payment within three months from the communication of this order.

  2. This review application has been filed by the respondents in the O.A. mainly on the grounds that the present case pertains to Mumbai Port Trust, which has not been notified under Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the point of jurisdiction has not been looked into while passing the Order on merits. It is settled principle of law that the legal points may be considered at any time even if it has not been raised in the pleading of either party. A bare perusal of the Order dated 07.09.2012 shows that the Order passed by the Tribunal suffers from apparent error on the face of record and, as such, is liable to be reviewed by the Tribunal.

  3. The applicant of O.A., respondent herein, has filed the Counter Affidavit denying the grounds taken in the Review Application alleging that the grounds raised in the Review Application have never been taken in the C.A. by the respondents, nor available in the face of record nor it has ever been argued while hearing the O.A. Therefore, it cannot be raised now in the Review Application. The scope of review is very limited, the Review Application is not an appeal and the Review Application lies only to correct the apparent error or omission on record. There is nothing on record in which jurisdiction point has been raised. This point cannot be raised in the Review Application. The Review Application having no force deserves to be dismissed.

  4. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the review applicants stating that this Tribunal has not given any finding on...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT