JUDGMENT
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.5.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Jaipur on the review preferred by the petitioner-Union of India against the earlier order dated 8.7.1999 which was final in nature.
2. The only controversy which was raised before the Tribunal by the respondent-applicant was that he was entitled to be granted temporary status from 29.11.1989 in view of the fact that he had served continuously for 240 days in each calender year and the said averment having been found to be correct, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent, granting him temporary status from 29.11.1989. The petitioners-Union of India thereafter filed a review petition before the Tribunal against the case of the respondent and submitted that in fact the respondent had not completed 240 days in the year 1,988-1989-1990 and, therefore, the temporary status could not have been assigned to him from the year 1989. He, however, was entitled to be conferred the temporary status only from January, 1992.
3. The learned Member of the Tribunal however held that the documents on the basis of which the review petition was filed, were already in the custody of the petitioner-Union of India right from the beginning and sufficient time was granted to them to produce it before the Tribunal which they had failed to avail and hence after disposal of the matter, the same could not have been allowed to be produced before the Tribunal so as to review and modify the order which was passed earlier in favour of the respondent. Consequently, the review petition stood dismissed against which this writ petition has been preferred.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Union of India has submitted that the documents in regard to conferment of temporary status on the respondent having been traced out later, it was a fit case for review even to the extent of modification of the order passed earlier in favour of the respondent. However, it is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent was not entitled to be granted the temporary status but the only dispute is with regard to the year from which it could have been assigned to the respondent. In this context, the Tribunal appears to be correct in its approach while recording that the records pertaining to continuous service of the respondent was already in the custody of the petitioner-Union of India which ought to have been produced at the relevant time and the same could not have been allowed to be produced after the matter was already disposed of.
5. The question, therefore, arises whether such a prayer on behalf of the petitioner could be entertained at the stage of review. The ambit and scope of the review petition is well settled and although there is no doubt about the legal position that a review can be held maintainable if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, a limitation also has been imposed that the said error cannot be allowed to be corrected by way of a review merely to condone the lapse or latches on the part of the litigant who casually allows the same to affect his case. It is an admitted position in the instant matter that the documents were already lying within the custody of the petitioner-Union of India and that had to be produced by way of evidence at the relevant time which was not produced. But non- production of documents as evidence having a vital bearing on the dispute which the party failed to produce will have to be treated as paucity of evidence and cannot be treated as error apparent on the face of the record so as to seek a review of the final order passed in the matter. The nature of conscious lapse on the part of the petitioner-Union of India before the Tribunal, in our opinion, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record so as to get the Impugned order rectified by the Tribunal by directing it to review its order and hence we hold that the review petition has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal. This writ petition therefore cannot be entertained. Consequently, It stands dismissed.
(The following note is being appended as directed by Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice vide order dt. 04.04.05).
The Order/Judgment was dictated and delivered in open Court by the D.B. comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice G.S. Misra & Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Singhal (As he then was) on 07.02.05, but signature of Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Singhal could not be obtained on the order/Judgment because his sad demise on 08.3.05.