RAJAN NAINAN vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
R.A.No.180/0035/2025 in
O.A.No.180/00533/2021
th
Tuesday, this the 13 day of October, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Rajan Ninan, Aged 62 years, S/o. K.K. Ninan, (Retired Station Manager,
Southern Railway, Kottayam) Residing at Kalathil, Vadavathur P.O.,
Kottayam-686010.
-Review Applicant/Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. Martin G Thottan]
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Park Town P.O., Chennai-600003.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway
Trivandrum Division, Trivandrum-14.
3. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Southern Railway
Trivandrum Division, Trivandrum-14
- Respondents/Respondents
[By Advocate: Mrs.Thanuja Roshan George]
The application having been heard on 18.08.2026, the Tribunal on
13.10.2026 delivered the following:
Deepa S 2026.10.16 16:50:15+05'30'

2
O R D E R
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member
Original Applicant in O.A.533/2021 has moved this Review Application
seeking to review and recall the order of the Tribunal dated 28.08.2025.
Applicant is a retired Station Manager. He had started service in the Southern
Railway as Assistant Station Master on 30.09.1983. While working as Station
Master, he was directly recruited as Traffic Apprentice on 31.03.1989. He was
regularly absorbed as Deputy Station Superintendent while working in the
cadre of Station Master. He was promoted as Station Master-I on 08.12.1995
with the pay of Rs.2000-3200 in level-7 with grade pay of Rs.4600/-. On
implementing the cadre restructuring scheme, he was promoted to the scale
of Rs.7450-11500 with effect from 01.11.2003. He was granted grade pay of
Rs.4800/- with effect from 01.09.2008. He retired from service on
31.03.2019. After retirement, Railway Board issued Annexure-A4 stating that
promotion from the post of Assistant Station Master with grade pay of
Rs.2800/- to Station Master with grade pay of Rs.4200/- should be ignored for
the purpose of grant of MACP and benefit of MACP ignoring promotion from
Assistant Station Master to Station Master shall be admissible with effect from
rd
16.02.2018. He was granted 3 MACP with grade pay of Rs.5400/- with effect
Deepa S 2026.10.16 16:50:15+05'30'

3
from 01.09.2018. Applicant claims that Annexure-A5, by which he was
rd
granted 3 MACP with grade pay of Rs.5400/- in level 9 with effect from
01.09.2018 is bad to the extent that he should have been granted the benefit
from 16.02.2018. So, he approached the Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure-
A5 to the extent it denied his financial upgradation with effect from
16.02.2018 and for consequential directions. The respondents disputed the
claim. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, by order dated
28.08.2025 the O.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he has moved the
R.A. under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules.
2. According to the Review Applicant, finding of the Tribunal is
totally erroneous and suffers from error apparent on the face of records for
the simple reason that Traffic Apprentice or Station Master-III is in grade pay
of Rs.4200/- and one appointed in grade pay of Rs.4200/- cannot get a
financial upgradation to a lower grade pay of Rs. 2000/-. On being posted as
Station Master-III in grade pay of Rs.4200/- the first promotion is to grade pay
nd
of Rs.4600/- and in that case he is eligible for 2 MACP to the grade pay of
rd
Rs.4800/- with effect from 01.09.2008 instead of the 3 MACP. He is eligible
rd
for the 3 MACP with grade pay of Rs.5400/- notwithstanding Annexure-A4
order of the Railways. According to him, the order is liable to be reviewed.
Deepa S 2026.10.16 16:50:15+05'30'

4
3. The respondents have opposed the application. According to
them, the R.A. is not maintainable. There is no discovery of new or important
matter or evidence despite exercise of due diligence, was not within the
knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time when the
order was passed; there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the
records or any other sufficient grounds warranting review.
4. According to them, the Original Applicant failed to demonstrate
any error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant wants re-
examination of the issue and re-interpretation of the applicable Rules and re-
appreciation of the facts, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. An
error apparent must be self evident and not one that requires long drawn
reasoning. A mere disagreement with the findings or interpretation cannot be
a ground for review. He is trying for re-hearing of the O.A., which is legally
impermissible. He also seeks to introduce new grounds. So, the R.A. is sought
to be dismissed.
5. We heard Sri.Martin G Thottan, learned counsel for the applicant
and Smt.Thanuja Roshan George, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.
6. Admittedly, the applicant had started service as Assistant Station
Deepa S 2026.10.16 16:50:15+05'30'

5
Master in Southern Railway on 30.09.1983. While working as Station Master,
he was directly recruited as Traffic Apprentice on 31.03.1989. He was granted
rd
MACPs and the 3 MACP was granted with effect from 01.09.2018. This order
was passed long after his retirement. Now, he wants the date to be advanced
to 16.02.2018. In the impugned order, we held that for the present purpose
service prior to 31.03.1989 cannot be reckoned. Similarly, we also went
through in detail the Annexure-A4. We also noticed that in Annexure-R1
representation dated 25.09.2018, submitted on the eve of his retirement, the
applicant himself had represented that he was entitled to get grade pay of
Rs.5400/- with effect from 01.09.2018. Such an order was passed subsequent
to the date of retirement of the applicant.
7. We had dismissed the O.A. after going through the relevant
inputs furnished by both sides. In a Review Application having regard to the
limited scope of the jurisdiction, it is not necessary to evaluate the materials
again.
8. From the Review Application itself, it is evident that he has
moved the Tribunal again on the premise that we had taken an erroneous
view of the contentions raised by the applicant. If the finding of the Tribunal
is erroneous, he can seek its rectification through other modes, not by filing
Deepa S 2026.10.16 16:50:15+05'30'

6
R.A.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the
attempt of the applicant is to raise contentions once again, which were
already considered and rejected. Learned Standing Counsel has placed
reliance on authorities also. We are not convinced that any of the grounds
available under Rule 1 of Order XLVII CPC could be made out by the applicant.
The Review Application lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Dismissed. No costs.
th
(Dated, this the 13 October, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.10.16 16:50:15+05'30'

7
List of Annexures
Annexure RA1- True copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal
in O.A.533 of 2021 dated 28.08.2025.

Deepa S 2026.10.16 16:50:15+05'30'