RAKESH SHARMA vs FINANCIAL SERVICES

(RA No.116/2026 in
1)
OA No.1462/2022)
(1

Central Adm
ministrative Tribunal
l
Principal B
Bench, New Delhi

No.116/2026
R.A. N
IN
No.1462/2022
O.A. N

y of October of 2026
th
This the 15 day


r Kaur Oberoi, Mem
eva Kumar, Member
Ho
on’ble Ms. Harvinde
ber (J)
r (A)
Hon’ble Mr. Sanjee

Rakesh
Chief G
PFRDA
R/o Fla
Sector
New D

(By Ad

h Sharma,
General Manager (Ret
A, New Delhi and
d),
at No.1849, Pocket 1,
r B, Vasant Kunj,
Delhi-110070.

…Review Appl
icant
dvocate :Mr. A.K.Sriva
astava)
V
Versus

1. Pen
sion Fund Regulatory
velopment Authority,
and
Dev
B-14
Qut
Katw
(e-e
(Thr

2. Mini
4/A, Chhatrapati Shiv
aji Bhawan,
ub Institutional Area,
waria Sarai, New Delh
email:chairman@pfrda

hi-110016.
a.org.in.)
rough it’s ChairPerson
).
istry of Finance,
partment of Financial S
Dep
Jeev
Parl
(Thr


Service,
van Deep Building,
iament Street, New D
rough its Secretary).
Delhi-110001.
…Respondents
s
ORDER (By
Circulation)
Hon’b
ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kum
mar, Member (A)

T
The instant Review Ap
pplication (RA) has be
een filed by
the O
Original Applicant un
nder Rule 17 of t
the Central
KEDAR RAM
2026.10.23
11:51:37
+05'30'
KEDAR RAM

(RA No.116/2026 in OA No.1462/2022)
(2)

Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking
review of the judgment dated 20.03.2026 passed by this
Tribunal in OA No.1462/2022, vide which the OA was
dismissed.
2. We have perused the RA and the Tribunal’s order. The
submissions made in the Review Application are not based
on any error apparent on the face of the record. In fact, the
Review Applicant is questioning the conclusion arrived at by
this Bench in the said order. If this Tribunal agrees to
Review Applicant’s prayer, this would be going into the merit
of the case again and re-write another judgment on the
same case.
3. Therefore, we do not consider it appropriate to go into
the merit of the case again, as by doing so, this Tribunal
would be acting as an appellate authority, which is not
permissible in review. In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar
Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, [AIR 1979 SC 1047],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh
v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, there is
nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a
High Court from exercising the power of review which
is inherent in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and
palpable errors committed by it. But, there are
definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review.
The power of review may be exercised on the
KEDAR RAM
2026.10.23
11:51:37
+05'30'
KEDAR RAM

(RA No.116/2026 in OA No.1462/2022)
(3)

discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the knowledge of the person seeking the review
or could not be produced by him at the time when the
order was made; it may be exercised where some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is
found; it may also be exercised on any analogous
ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground
that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would
be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of
review is not to be confused with appellate power
which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all
matters or errors committed by the Subordinate
Court."

4. Again in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of
Orissa and others , 1999 (9) SCC 596, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"The provisions extracted above indicate that the power
of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has
been given to a court under Section 114 read with
Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged
in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power
can be exercised on the application of a person on the
discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
at the time when the order was made. The power can
also be exercised on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record or for any other
sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked
for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or
correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to
say, the power of review can be exercised only for
correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares
in the face without any elaborate argument being
needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out
that the expression "any other sufficient reason"
used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason
sufficiently analogous to those specified in the
rule.
KEDAR RAM
2026.10.23
11:51:37
+05'30'
KEDAR RAM

(RA No.116/2026 in OA No.1462/2022)
(4)

Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct
an apparent error or an attempt not based on
any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to
an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal
under the Act to review its judgment. "
[emphasis added]

5. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.
Madhusudhan Reddy vs. N. Narayana Reddy and
others , reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC)685, has very
elaborately considered the scope of Review, relevant paras
of the same are reproduced below:-
“17. It is also settled law that in exercise of review
jurisdiction, the Court cannot reappreciate the
evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if
two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala
State Electricity Board v. Hitech
Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and
Others22 , this Court observed as follows:

“10. .... In a review petition it is not open
to this Court to reappreciate the
evidence and reach a different
conclusion, even if that is possible .
Learned counsel for the Board at best sought
to impress us that the correspondence
exchanged between the parties did not
support the conclusion reached by this Court.
We are afraid such a submission cannot be
permitted to be advanced in a review
petition. The appreciation of evidence on
record is fully within the domain of the
appellate court. If on appreciation of the
evidence produced, the court records a
finding of fact and reaches a conclusion,
that conclusion cannot be assailed in a
review petition unless it is shown that
there is an error apparent on the face of
KEDAR RAM
2026.10.23
11:51:37
+05'30'
KEDAR RAM

(RA No.116/2026 in OA No.1462/2022)
(5)

the record or for some reason akin
thereto. It has not been contended before
us that there is any error apparent on the
face of the record. To permit the review
petitioner to argue on a question of
appreciation of evidence would amount
to converting a review petition into an
appeal in disguise." (emphasis added)

18. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a
party cannot be permitted to repeat old and
overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions
arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is
not to be confused with the appellate power which
enables the Superior Court to correct errors
committed by a subordinate Court. This point has
been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. V. Shin
Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501 ,
where it was held thus:

“11. So far as the grievance of the applicant
on merits is concerned, the learned counsel
for the opponent is right in submitting that
virtually the applicant seeks the same relief
which had been sought at the time of arguing
the main matter and had been negatived.
Once such a prayer had been refused, no
review petition would lie which would convert
rehearing of the original matter . It is settled
law that the power of review cannot be
confused with appellate power which
enables a superior court to correct all
errors committed by a subordinate
court. It is not rehearing of an original
matter. A repetition of old and overruled
argument is not enough to reopen
concluded adjudications. The power of
review can be exercised with extreme
care, caution and circumspection and
only in exceptional cases.

12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by
the applicant herein had been made at the
time when the arbitration petition was heard
and was rejected, the same relief cannot be
sought by an indirect method by filing a
KEDAR RAM
2026.10.23
11:51:37
+05'30'
KEDAR RAM

(RA No.116/2026 in OA No.1462/2022)
(6)

review petition. Such petition, in my
opinion, is in the nature of 'second
innings' which is impermissible and
unwarranted and cannot be granted.”
(emphasis added)


6. In fact, the Review Applicant could have pointed out
only some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record or for any other sufficient reason or on the discovery
of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or
could not be produced by review applicant at the time when
the order was made, but no such thing is pointed out in any
of the averments and submissions made in the present RA.
As such, the present RA does not come within the ambit of
provisions of review and RA is devoid of merit. The same is
accordingly dismissed in circulation.


(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)

/kdr/

KEDAR RAM
2026.10.23
11:51:37
+05'30'
KEDAR RAM