Shri Bhanwar Singh vs RAILWAY BOARD

1
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026


Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

RA No. 120/2026
in
O.A. No.3020/2026

st
This the 21 day of October, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Shri Bhanwar Singh,
S/o Shri Rati Ram,
Age- 62 years, Employment No. 633,
Retd. as MCM, Group-C,
R/o D-18/896, Amar Colony, No.18,
Near Good Morning Public School,
Amar Colony, East Gokul Pur,
Delhi-110094.
... Review Applicant
Versus
1. Ministry of Railways & Others: Through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, Railway Board,
New Delhi-110001.

2. The General Manager,
HQ Office, Baroda House,
New Delhi.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway, State Entry Road,
New Delhi.
... Review Respondents

Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR

2
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

ORDER (In Circulation)
The present Review Application has been filed by the
original applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking
review and recall of the order dated 12.08.2026 passed in O.A.
No. 3020/2026, operative part of which is reproduced
hereinbelow :-
“ 4. Keeping in view, the fact that the applicant has filed a
representation on 26.05.2026 annexed (Annexure A-29) and the
said representation is yet to be decided by the respondent
authority. The applicant filed the present OA on 10.08.2026,
Section 20 (2) (b) of the Act is reproduced below:-
'20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies
exhausted. - (1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an
application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed
of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service
rules as to redressal of grievances.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be
deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him
under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,-
(a) ...
(b) where no final order has been made by the Government or
other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such
order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation
made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on
which such appeal was preferred or representation was made
has expired.'
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR
5. From the above, it is understood that the mandatory period
from the date of filing the representation and filing of OA as
prescribed u/s 20 (2) (b) of the Act is not completed and the
present OA is filed in contravention of the relevant provisions of
the Act, then the OA is liable to be dismissed at this Stage.
7. All pending MAs stand disposed of, if any. No costs."

3
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

2. By way of review, the original applicant has submitted
that well before the representation dated 26.05.2026, he had
already submitted representations dated 06.05.2019,
31.07.2023 and 06.10.2023 (collectively Annexure A-24 to the
O.A.) and a further representation dated 10.09.2024
(Annexure A-25 to the O.A.), all seeking the very same relief of
release of pensionary/retiral benefits, which representations
are duly reflected in the Synopsis and List of Dates filed along
with the O.A. and formed part of the record before this
Tribunal. The applicant submitted that qua the representation
dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure A-25) alone, the mandatory
period of six months prescribed under Section 20(2)(b) of the
Act stood expired on 10.03.2025, i.e. more than seventeen
months prior to the filing of the O.A. on 10.08.2026; and qua
the earlier representations dated 06.05.2019, 31.07.2023 and
06.10.2023 (Annexure A-24), the said period had expired
several years prior to the filing of the O.A., which means that
the applicant had already exhausted all the remedies available
to him under the relevant service rules before filing of the O.A.,
and the O.A. was very much maintainable on this ground
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR
alone, quite independent of and de hors the subsequent
representation dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure A-29), which was
only in the nature of a further/reiterated representation on the
same subject-matter.

4
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

3. It is submitted that because the said mistake/error is
manifest and self-evident on the face of the record and does
not require any long-drawn process of reasoning or re-
appreciation of evidence to discover it, and, therefore, squarely
falls within the limited scope of review recognised under
Section 22(3)(f) of the Act, which is akin/analogous to the
power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. It is further stated that the applicant is a superannuated
Government employee, aged 62 years, who has been pursuing
release of his legitimate retiral dues without success since the
year 2019 (and, in substance, since a much earlier date), and
grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to him if he is
now relegated to instituting a fresh Original Application,
entailing further avoidable delay in the disposal of a matter
concerning his post-retiral dues, particularly when the cause
of action, on the basis of the earlier representations referred to
above, had already fully matured/accrued in his favour well
before the O.A. came to be filed.
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR
5. In support of his contentions, the applicant has relied
upon the decision of the Tribunal at Guwahati in the case of
Kalyan Kumar Das & others Vs. UOI & others (2012(3)
(CAT) AISLJ), in which it was held that the word 'ordinarily'

5
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

used in Sub-section (1) of Section 20 leaves discretion with the
Tribunal to entertain an application under Section 19 even
where the applicant has failed to avail remedies under relevant
service rules, and that an "impugned order" is not a sine qua
for filing the O.A. Hence the judgment dated 12.08.2026
non
may be recalled in the interest of justice.
6. It is also submitted that no prejudice, much less any
irreparable prejudice, would be caused to the respondents if
the impugned order is reviewed and the O.A. is restored to its
original number and heard and decided on merits, whereas
grave prejudice would be caused to the applicant if the review
is declined.
7. I have carefully considered the grounds urged in the
Review Application and perused the order under review. The
principal contention of the Review Applicant is that certain
earlier representations seeking release of his retiral benefits
had been submitted prior to the representation dated
26.05.2026 and that, therefore, the Original Application could
not have been dismissed on the ground that the period of six
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR
months contemplated under Section 20(2)(b) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had not expired. However,
the question before this Tribunal in the present proceedings is
not whether another view on the maintainability of the

6
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

Original Application is possible, but whether the order dated
12.08.2026 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the
record warranting review within the limited scope of Section
22(3)(f) of the Act.
8. It is significant to note that, although the Review
Applicant relies upon representations allegedly submitted in
the years 2019, 2023 and 2024, no application seeking
condonation of delay was filed along with the Original
Application. If the applicant's contention is that his cause of
action had already arisen on the basis of the aforesaid
representations, it was for him to address, in the Original
Application itself, the question of limitation and seek
appropriate relief in accordance with law, wherever required.
Having failed to do so, the applicant cannot seek, by way of the
present Review Application, a reconsideration of the order
under review merely by relying upon the dates of earlier
representations. The filing of successive representations on the
same subject-matter does not, by itself, extend the period of
limitation prescribed by law.
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR
9. The applicant has also contended that the representation
dated 26.05.2026 was merely a reiteration of his earlier
representations and that the period of six months
contemplated under Section 20(2)(b) of the Administrative

7
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

Tribunals Act, 1985 had already expired in respect of the
earlier representations. Even if this contention is considered
on its own terms, it does not, by itself, establish that the order
under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the
record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The present
proceedings cannot be converted into a fresh adjudication of
the maintainability of the Original Application by re-examining
the effect of the earlier representations. The decision relied
upon by the applicant does not dispense with the requirement
of establishing a legally sustainable ground for review in the
facts of the present case. The applicant cannot, however, seek
repeated reconsideration of the order under review merely on
the ground that dismissal of the Original Application has
necessitated recourse to another proceeding. No opinion is
expressed on the merits or maintainability of any such
proceedings.
10. There appears to be no error of fact or law which invites
intervention of this Tribunal under the review. The review
applicant is trying to re-argue the matter and is bringing out
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR
the facts which have already been duly considered.
11. The scope of review is limited to situations where
a new evidence has been discovered, which despite
due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the

8
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

applicant(s) earlier either on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of record. These principles
have been reiterated in :-
(i) Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das , (2004) SCC (L&S)
160

(ii) Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others , (1999)
9 SCC 596

(iii) State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta &
Anr 2008 (9) SCALE 509

(iv) Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers
Association & Ors. 2007 9 SCC 369

12. On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in
its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others
Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another , [2008 (3) AISLJ 209]
stating therein that “the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil
Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-
section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act
including the power of reviewing its decision.”
At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the
Supreme Court are as under:-
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR
“(i) The power of Tribunal to review it order/decision under
Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of
a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1)
of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the
grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.

9
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

(iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing
in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other
specific grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be
discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be
treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying
exercise of power under Section 22(2) (f).

(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in
the guise of exercise of power of review.

(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section
22(3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a
coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior
court.

(vii) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section
22(3)(f).

(viii) While considering an application for review, the
Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to
material which was available at the time of initial decision.
The happening of some subsequent event or development
cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial
order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.

(ix) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence
is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking
review has also to show that such matter or evidence was
not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due
diligence the same could not be produced before the
Court/Tribunal earlier.”

13. From the above, it is amply clear that existence of error
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR
apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for
entertainment of the Review Application. We are convinced
that there is no error in our order dated 12.08.2026 passed in

10
RA No.120/2026 in
OA No.3020/2026

the captioned OA and the same does not warrant any
interference through review jurisdiction.

14. The review application is accordingly dismissed in
circulation.


(Rajveer Singh Verma)
Member (J)
‘rk’
Digitally signed by RACHNA
RACHNA KAPOOR
KAPOOR