Union of India v. Subhash Kumar Ghosh

1. After hearing Mr. Sandeep Mishra, learned Counsel for the Union of India, as the review petitioner, at some length, we find that the only substantial case that he has raised is that there are divergent views with respect to whether the financial upgradation granted to the respondents in the present case would be liable to be treated as a promotion or as a mere financial upgradation.

2. This Court has, in the judgment under review, concurred with the Central Administrative Tribunal[1] in its view that it can only be treated as a mere financial upgradation. Inter alia, in arriving at the said decision, the Court has relied on the judgment of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of one V. Venkataraman, which was upheld by the High Court of Madras, and the Patna Bench of the Tribunal in the case of one Binit Kumar Verma, also upheld by the High Court Patna, against both of which decisions Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed by the Supreme Court.

3. Neither does the review petition assert, nor does Mr. Mishra contend, on facts, that the applicants before the Tribunal in the present case were situated differently from V. Venkataraman or Binit Kumar Verma. No attempt has been made, by Mr Mishra, to distinguish the said decisions.

4. Mr. Mishra’s only contention is that there are divergent decisions on this issue.

5. That, in our considered opinion, cannot constitute a ground for review of our judgment. “the Tribunal” hereinafter

6. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications also stand dismissed.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.