Gauhati High Court
Saikat Dutta vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 8 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010081312022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Review.Pet./82/2022
SAIKAT DUTTA
S/O LATE A.R DUTTA
RESIDENT OF RLY. QTR. NO. 119/B, B.G COLONY, NEW BONGAIGAON,
DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783380
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F RAILWAYS, MALIGAON,
2:THE SR. DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
RANGIA DIVISION
NF RAILWAY
RANGIA
3:THE DIVISIONAL FINANCE MANAGER
RANGIA DIVISION
NF RAILWAY
RANGI
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Dutta, CGC (R-1 to 3).
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAKHETO SEMA
ORDER
08.05.2023
[Sandeep Mehta, CJ]
The applicant/writ petitioner has filed this instant application under Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 114 of the CPC seeking review of the order
dated 21.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.745/2022 preferred by the petitioner.
2. The applicant is aggrieved by the proposed recovery of alleged excess amount of
travelling allowance paid to him. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), rejected the
Original Application preferred by the applicant by order dated 07.12.2021, which was
unsuccessfully assailed by the applicant by filing the WP(C) No.745/2022, which too stands
dismissed by order dated 21.03.2022. Through this application, the petitioner seeks review of
the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by this Court.
3. Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the review applicant urged that the view taken
by the Division Bench in rejecting the writ petition of the petitioner is erroneous inasmuch as,
even though the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar
Singh v. State of Punjab though cited was not considered while deciding the writ petition.
It was further contended that relevant circulars/notifications issued by the Railway Board
were also not considered by the Division Bench. On these grounds, learned counsel Mr.
Mukherjee implored the Court to accept the application for review and pass the necessary
consequential directions restraining the employer railways from effecting recovery as above.
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the order under review and the
order passed by the learned Tribunal and so also the pleadings in the review application.
5. A bare perusal of the pleadings would indicate that no ground has been set out by the
applicant that any of the arguments advanced on his behalf were not considered by the
Division Bench while deciding the writ petition. The basic ground of seeking review is that the
Page No.# 3/3
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq
Masih(White Washer) etc.1 and the Railway Board's notification dated 22.06.2016 were
not considered while dismissing the writ petition. We find that the said argument is ex facie
fallacious because even in the pleadings of the review application, there is no such averment
that the judgment referred to above or the notification dated 22.06.2016 were cited and were
omitted from consideration.
6. Furthermore, we find a stark distinction in the circumstances prevailing in the case of
Rafiq Masih (supra) and the said judgment is totally distinguishable because in the said
case, excess amounts were paid to the employees on account of the mistakes committed by
the concerned authorities. However, in the present case, it is the applicant who had drawn
excess travelling allowance contrary to the rules and regulations of the Railways, which make
the travelling allowance applicable only for a duty beyond the radius of 8 KM from the
headquarter. Thus, it is a case of the employee irregularly drawing the travelling allowances
contrary to his entitlement and hence, the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of
Rafiq Masih (supra) would not apply to the case at hand.
7. That apart, there cannot be any two views on the proposition that a final order passed
in any case can be subjected to review only if the same suffers from an error apparent on the
face of the record. By no stretch of imagination, can this Court be satisfied that such a
situation prevails in the present case.
8. Hence, we find no reason to exercise the powers of review so as to modify the order
dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Division Bench in WP(C) No.745/2022. Accordingly, the
review application fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Sd/- Kakheto Sema Sd/- Sandeep Mehta
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
1 (2015) 4 SCC 334
