Gokul Chandra Pati ORDER
Gokul Chandra Pati, Member (A)
1. This Review Application, filed by the applicant of the OA No. 17/2018, is directed against the order dated 7.8.2018 of this tribunal passed in OA No. 17/2018 dismissing the OA. The Review Application has been filed within the time stipulated under the rules.
2. The facts of the case in brief is that the applicant, while working as a part time contingent worker under the respondents, was selected for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (in short GDS) and he joined as GDS on 2.5.1998. 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 dated 7.8.2018. The Review Application, directed against this order, advances the following grounds:
(i) The OA was dismissed on the ground that the applicant had himself relinquished the charge of contingent waterman on 2.5.1998 while joining as GDS and claiming the benefit of a casual employee with temporary status after a long gap is not permissible. The applicant had submitted a letter dated 2.5.1998 (Annexure-A/10) addressed to the respondents by which, he had stated that in case there is possibility for appointment of the applicant against a higher post, then his case should be considered against that higher post. Hence, it would be incorrect to say that the applicant had relinquished the post of contingent waterman on 2.5.1998.
(ii) Since this letter dated 2.5.1998 was misplaced, it could not be produced by the applicant at the time of consideration of the OA. This document being an important document was not produced in the OA.
3. 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 Rule 1(1) of the Order 47 states as under:
"1. Application for review of judgement
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
4. The position of law in this regard has been clearly laid down in the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati And Others, 2013 AIR SC 3301, in which it was held as under:-
"18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. This Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. MANU/SC/8226/2006 : 2006 5 SCC 501, held as under: (SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12)
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of........