M/o Railways vs MANDIP SINGH

1
(By Circulation) MA No. 5237/2026 in R.A Diary No. 11163/2026 in OA 891/2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

M.A No. 5237/2026 in RA Diary No. 11163/2026
in OA No. 891/2026

nd
This the 22 Day of October, 2026


Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)


1. Union of India,
Through its General Manager,
Northern Railway, Baroda House,
New Delhi – 110001.

2. Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, Ferozepur Division,
Punjab – 152001. ….Review Applicant


Vs.


Sh. Mandip Singh,
S/o Sh. Dayal Singh,
R/o Near Khamba Gate, House No. 671,
Nokodar Road, Khambra,
Jalandhar, Punjab – 144026. ….Respondent


ORDER (In Circulation)

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):

By means of the present Review Application filed under Section
22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and Order XLVII
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Review Applicants
(original respondents in O.A. No. 891/2016) seek review and recall of the


2026.10.22 15:55:38
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

2
(By Circulation) MA No. 5237/2026 in R.A Diary No. 11163/2026 in OA 891/2026

judgment and final order dated 19.01.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A.
No. 891/2016, along with an accompanying application for condonation of
delay of 212 days in instituting the Review Application.
2. The brief factual background of the dispute is that the original
applicant, Sh. Mandip Singh, was appointed as a Ticket Collector in
Northern Railway on 29.06.1996 under the Sports Quota. During his
service, he achieved various distinctions in athletics, securing a Bronze
Medal in 1997, a Silver Medal in 1998, and a Gold Medal in the 400m
hurdles event in 1999 at the All India Open Athletic Championships. Over
the course of time, after engaging in prior rounds of litigation to secure
out-of-turn promotion, the original applicant instituted O.A. No. 891/2016
in the year 2016 seeking directions for payment of additional sports
incentive increments for his national level sports achievements in terms of
the Railway Board Circular dated 20.06.2006, along with arrears and
consequential benefits.
3. The original respondents opposed the O.A. by contending inter
alia that the application was heavily barred by limitation, delay, and laches
as it sought benefits for achievements dating back to 1997–1999 after an
unexplained lapse of 16 to 18 years. It was further pleaded by the
respondents that the grant of sports incentive increments for Bronze and
Silver medal performances was not automatic but was subject to the
advice/recommendation of the Railway Sports Promotion Board (RSPB),
which was never made in the applicant’s case. Additionally, the
respondents asserted that under the revised Railway Board policy dated
31.12.2010, a ceiling of a maximum of five sports incentive increments

2026.10.22 15:55:38
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

3
(By Circulation) MA No. 5237/2026 in R.A Diary No. 11163/2026 in OA 891/2026

during an entire service career had been imposed, whereas the applicant
had already been granted as many as eleven sports/advance incentive
increments during his service tenure.
4. This Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 19.01.2026,
allowed O.A. No. 891/2016, principally drawing parity with the case of one
Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh (a cricketer who had been granted out-of-turn
promotion with four additional increments in 2002), and directed
Respondent No. 1 to consider paying the admissible incentive increments
along with consequential benefits. The Review Applicants initially
challenged the said judgment dated 19.01.2026 before the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi by way of W.P.(C) No. 11607/2026, which was permitted to
be withdrawn vide order dated 13.08.2026 with liberty to file a review
application before this Tribunal.
5. Having carefully perused the Review Application, the grounds set
forth therein, and the material available on record, we have given our
thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is a well-settled principle of law
governing review jurisdiction under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985—which is analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil
Procedure Code—that a review of a judgment is permissible only on
limited grounds, namely, discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not
be produced at the time when the order was passed, or on account of
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason. It is equally well established through a long line of
authoritative judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including


2026.10.22 15:55:38
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

4
(By Circulation) MA No. 5237/2026 in R.A Diary No. 11163/2026 in OA 891/2026

Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715], Lily Thomas vs.
Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224], State of West Bengal vs. Kamal
Sengupta [(2008) 8 SCC 612], and Union of India vs. Tarit Baran Dey
[(1998) 8 SCC 481], that the scope of review is extremely restricted and
cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. A review application cannot
be entertained merely to rehear arguments on merits, re-examine
pleadings, or substitute one plausible view with another. An error
apparent on the face of the record must be a patent defect or an error
which is self-evident and does not require an elaborate process of
reasoning or long drawn out arguments to establish.
6. In the present Review Application, the Review Applicants have
extensively argued that the Tribunal overlooked their preliminary
objections regarding limitation and delay, omitted to discuss the lack of
RSPB recommendation, failed to evaluate the policy ceiling of five
increments under the 2010 circular, and incorrectly applied the principle of
parity with Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh. However, a close inspection of the
record reveals that all these contentions, affidavits, policies, and factual
distinctions were already pleaded, submitted, and fully available before
the Tribunal at the time of final hearing of the O.A. The Coordinate
Bench, after calling for an additional affidavit specifically on the
comparative facts of Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh and examining the entire
service and administrative records, consciously evaluated the comparative
merits and arrived at a considered judicial conclusion on grounds of
equity, parity, and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Whether the Tribunal's decision in granting relief


2026.10.22 15:55:38
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

5
(By Circulation) MA No. 5237/2026 in R.A Diary No. 11163/2026 in OA 891/2026

on grounds of parity was correct on merits or whether a different
interpretation of the administrative rules/circulars ought to have been
taken are matters strictly within the domain of an appellate forum and
cannot be re-agitated or re-adjudicated under the garb of a Review
Application. If the Review Applicants are aggrieved by the findings or
conclusions recorded in the judgment dated 19.01.2026, the appropriate
remedy lies in challenging the order before the higher judicial forum in
accordance with law rather than seeking a full re-hearing of the original
matter before this Tribunal. Consequently, we find no error apparent on
the face of the record, nor any fresh material, which would justify invoking
our review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Review Application, along with
the pending M.A. for condonation of delay, lacks merit and is hereby
dismissed, with no order as to costs



(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)


/Mbt/
2026.10.22 15:55:38
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'