LRS ARPNA LAWRANCE vs M/o Railways

1


(Open Court)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR

Review Application No.33 of 2019
(In OA No. 249 of 2011)

st
Jabalpur, this the 01 day of October, 2026

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1. Sameer Gabrial Lawrance (deceased) represented through his LRs

(a). Arpana Lawrance, W/o Late Shri Sameer Lawrance, aged about 43 years.

(b). Aksheev Samuel Lawrance, S/o Late Shri Sameer Lawrance, aged about
15 years, represented through his mother and natural guardian Arpana
Lawrance, W/o Late Shri Sameer Lawrance, aged about 43 years.
Both R/o House No. 550, Ward No. 30, Koldhana, Chhindwara (M.P) -
480001. -Applicants
By Advocate: Ms. Shrunkhala Darekar, holding brief of Shri Manoj Sharma
V e r s u s
1. Union of India , Ministry of Railway, through its General Manager, S.E.C.
Railway, near Railway Station, Bilaspur (CG) - 495001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.C. Railway, near Railway Station,
Nagpur (Maharashtra) - 440002.
3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Operations Manager, C/o Divisional Railway
Manager, S.E.C. Railway, near Railway Station, Nagpur (Maharashtra) -
440002.
4. Station Manager, Railway Station, Chhindwara (M.P) – 480001.

5. Collector, Office of Collectorate, Jabalpur, District – Jabalpur (M.P) –
482001.

6. Shri M.K. Singh, Sr. Divisional Personnel Operations Manager, C/o
Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.C. Railway, near Railway Station,
Nagpur (Maharashtra) - 440002. - Respondents

By Advocate: Shri D.S. Baghel
Page 1 of 5
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.29
17:14:55+05'30'
DUBEY

2


O R D E R
By Smt. Mallika Arya, A.M.-
This Review Application has been filed by the applicants, who are the
legal representative of original applicant Late Sameer Gabrial Lawrance,
seeking review of the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in Original Application
No.249/2011.
2. The operative paragraph of the impugned order dated 22.07.2019 is as
follows:-
“Resultantly, this Original Application is allowed. The order dated
08.03.2011 (Annexure A/1) passed by Senior Divisional Operations
Manager, Nagpur, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the disciplinary authority with a direction to make a
reference to the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee/High Power
Committee annexing the original caste certificate produced by the
applicant along with all other relevant documents pertaining to
service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On receiving such reference, the concerned
Caste Scrutiny Committee/High Power Committee shall proceed
with the matter in accordance with the law / principles settled by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ku. Madhuri Patil (Supra).
No costs.”

3. Main grounds mentioned in the Review Application to review the order
dated 22.07.2019 is that since the original applicant has died, therefore, an
enquiry against such employee is not possible. The learned counsel for the
applicant has also stated that as per the Railway Servant (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules 1968, an enquiry against the deceased railway servant is null
and void. Learned counsel for the applicant has also raised a ground to
review the order that the action of the respondents in terminating the
Page 2 of 5
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.29
17:14:55+05'30'
DUBEY

3

services of the deceased employee was in violation of the principles laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil as there was no
misrepresentation on the part of the deceased applicant.
4. It is noted that the scope of reviewing the order of this Tribunal is limited
to the grounds as mentioned in the Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. A review
application can be entertained on the ground of error apparent on the face of
record or new facts / matter which was not known at the time of hearing of
the O.A. It is noted that in the case of State of West Bengal And Others v.
Kamal Sengupta and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612 , Hon’ble
Supreme Court has laid down following factors to be kept in mind for
review:-
“(i). The power of the Tribunal to review is akin to order 47 Rule
1 of CPC read with Section 114.
(ii). The grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 to be
followed and not otherwise.
(iii). “that any other sufficient reasons” in order 47 Rule 1
has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv). An error which is not self evident and which can be
discovered by a long process of reasoning cannot be treated as
an error apparent on the face of the record.
(v). An erroneous decision cannot be corrected under
review.
(vi). An order cannot be reviewed on the basis of subsequent
decision / judgment of coordinate Larger bench or a superior
Court.
Page 3 of 5
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.29
17:14:55+05'30'
DUBEY

4

(vii). The adjudication has to be with regard to material
which were available at the time of initial decision subsequent
event / developments are not error apparent.
(viii). Mere discovery of new / important matter or evidence is
not sufficient ground for review. The party also has 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 earlier before the Tribunal .”
5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar and others Vs.
Rambhai and others – (2007) 15 SCC 513 has dealt with the question of
review and its maintainability and has held as under: -
“6. The limitation on exercise of the power of review are
well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a
review petition is that the order review of which is sought,
suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and
permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the
absence of any such error, finality attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed .
6. In the case of Inder Chand Jain (Dead) through Lrs, Vs. Motilal (dead)
through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 the Hon’ble Apex Court held
as under:-
“.. 10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court
does not sit in appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the
matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the
general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it
should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent
jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of
India [AIR 2000 SC 1650], this Court held :
Page 4 of 5
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.29
17:14:55+05'30'
DUBEY

5

"56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be
exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a
view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the
statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be
treated an appeal in disguise.”
7. We have examined the grounds mentioned in the Review Application in
the light of the legal provisions and principles as discussed above and
consider that these grounds cannot be termed as an error apparent on the
face of the record and hence these ground cannot be considered as a legally
valid ground to review the order dated 22.07.2019 as per law. The applicants
have to seek appropriate remedy as per law if they have still any grievance,
but the review against the said order on the grounds mentioned in the
Review Application are not permissible in view of the provisions of law and
the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case laws, as
discussed in this order. Therefore, the Review Application No. 33/2019 is
devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed.

(Mrs. Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member

Anand…


Page 5 of 5
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.29
17:14:55+05'30'
DUBEY