Kerala High Court
P.Sundarambal vs Union Of India on 6 September, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2024:KER:67181
RP 804/2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH
BHADRA, 1946
RP NO. 804 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.7.2024 IN OP
(CAT) NO.345 OF 2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
P.SUNDARAMBAL
AGED 69 YEARS
CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER OF CENTRAL
EXCISE,(RETD), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS , CENTRAL
REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD,
COCHIN, PIN - 682018
BY ADV C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110001
2 CHAIRMAN
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH
BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2024:KER:67181
RP 804/2024
2
3 CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &
CUSTOMS
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS
ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682018
4 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS
ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682018
BY ADV T. V. VINU, CGC
SRI.V.GIRISHKUMAR, SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.08.2024, THE COURT ON 06.09.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:67181
RP 804/2024
3
AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.
------------------------------------
R.P.No.804 of 2024 in OP(CAT) No.345 of 2017
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2024
ORDER
Easwaran S., J.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.7.2024 in allowing
OP(CAT) No.345/2017, the respondent in the original petition has
filed the present review petition. The issue pertains to the right of
the review petitioner/respondent to seek promotion from the date
of arising of the vacancy/finding of eligibility. Either way, by the
judgment under review, this Court found that the review petitioner
is not entitled to promotion as claimed and would be entitled only
from the date of the order passed by the Departmental Promotion
Committee. In the review petition, it is contended that certain
documents, which were part of the record before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, were not produced by the Union of
India/petitioners. Had this Court perused those materials, this
Court could not have allowed the original petition.
2. At the outset itself, we note that the grounds stated in
the review petition will not qualify itself to be an error apparent on
2024:KER:67181
the face of the record entitling the petitioner to maintain the review
petition. A perusal of the grounds stated by the petitioner would
necessarily show that what is attempted is re-hearing of the original
petition.
3. However, despite this embargo, in order to ascertain as
to whether the review petitioner was justified in raising these
grounds for review, we had sought for the documents from the
counsel for the review petitioner and perused the same. The review
petitioner asserted before this Court that she had filed the
documents through a statement by the counsel. However, we hasten
to add that those documents were not available on record at the time
when the original petition was considered by us. Nor those
documents were produced along with the review petition. Still, we
required the learned counsel for the review petitioner to make
available those documents in order to ascertain as to whether our
decision could have changed had these documents were produced
on record.
4. The review petitioner has mainly relied on a letter dated
17.6.2015, which is obtained under the Right to Information Act. A
perusal of the letter shows that there were altogether 81 (eighty-one)
2024:KER:67181
vacancies for the year 2010-11, and the Departmental Promotion
Committee conducted the meeting and issued order dated
28.11.2014. The minutes of the Departmental Promotion
Committee were annexed along with the letter referred to above
obtained under the Right to Information Act. A further perusal of
the document shows without any doubt that the review
petitioner/respondent was eligible for promotion for the year 2010-
11. However, it is an admitted fact that the Departmental
Promotion Committee was convened only in 2014 and
recommended the case of the review petitioner. Therefore, the
above document shows that, no doubt, the vacancies were available,
and the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the
case of the review petitioner for the year 2010-11. Even if these
documents were made available before us at the time we had
rendered the judgment, it would not have persuaded us to take a
different view other than what we had taken in the judgment under
review. The learned counsel for the review petitioner also asserted
before us that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had confirmed the
order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in similar facts
and circumstances. However, we had already found that in the
2024:KER:67181
judgment under review, the impact of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was not brought to the notice of the earlier Co-
ordinate Bench which rendered the judgment. At any rate, the
document now placed before us would not have improved the case
of the review petitioner. The fact remains that no statutory rules
have been brought to our notice which enabled the review petitioner
to claim that the promotion should be granted to her from the date
on which she became eligible.
5. In view of the above discussions, we find no error
apparent on the face of the record warranting review of our
judgment dated 10.7.2024.
The review petition lacks merits and, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
jg
