- (1.) THE petitioner staked the claim before the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal that he should be given the same salary, which the persons juniors to him have been given.
(2.) A Bench of the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal directed the respon dents to step up the salary of the applicant to that of Shri S. Konda Reddy. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred are view application that he should have also been granted the pay scale which Shri R. C. Mishra has been drawing who, according to the petitioner, was junior to him. The review petition was dismissed, because the Tribunal was of the view that the judgment can be reviewed only on three grounds. If there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or a new fact is brought out, which could not be placed before the Tribunal earlier despite due diligence, which warrants the review of the earlier orders or any other analogous reason. The Tribunal was of the view that there was no finding in the said order that the applicant was senior to Shri R. C. Mishra also. Hence, the Tribunal found that it had committed no error apparent on the face of record and proper course for the applicant was to file an appeal before the appropriate forum than a review ap plication, because there was no scope of re- adjudication on merit. Being aggrieved against the said order passed by the Central Administra tive Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) WE are of the view that after the judgment passed by the Central Ad ministrative Tribunal giving the same pay scale to the petitioner which Shri S. Konda Reddy was getting, if the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed then he ought to have filed a fresh original application before the Tribunal for payment of same pay scale which Shri R. C. Mishra was get ting, but instead of filing an original ap plication, the petitioner has filed a review petition, which was dismissed. We are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.;