A review cannot reopen a pension ruling absent an error apparent on the record.

The original applicant sought pensionary benefits and settlement dues relating to his late father, Munshi Lal. An earlier O.A. No. 1396/2006, in which the claim had been rejected as time-barred, had been filed by the applicant.

Following a later representation, the Railway authorities rejected the claim by order dated 10.05.2018; the applicant challenged that order in O.A. No. 1113/2018, which was allowed by an order dated 18.08.2025. The Railway respondents filed the present Review Application on 04.02.2026, accompanied by an application to condone delay.

They attributed the delay to administrative consideration, obtaining legal advice, and preparation and vetting of the review.

They argued that the subsequent O.A. was barred by res judicata and that the service records were unavailable. The applicant opposed condonation and review, submitting, among other things, that the later rejection order and the recurring nature of the pension claim supported the O.A.

Whether the Tribunal could condone delay in filing the Review Application and, if so, whether the respondents had shown sufficient cause.

Whether the earlier O.A. and the unavailability of service records disclosed an apparent error or other permissible ground for reviewing the order in O.A. No. 1113/2018.

Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 governs review applications, while Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay upon sufficient cause; following the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Union of India v. Shailendra Kumar Verma (Writ-A No. 18824/2025, decided 15.12.2025), the Tribunal held that such an application for condonation is maintainable before it.

The review power under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, is limited to grounds such as discovery of new matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; it is not an appeal or an opportunity for rehearing on the merits. The Tribunal relied on Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389; Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 85; and Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn., (2007) 9 SCC 369.

It also applied the principles that res judicata does not necessarily bar a claim founded on a fresh or continuing cause of action, and that pension-related continuing or recurring claims may be entertained subject to applicable limits on arrears; it considered Sharwan Kumar v. State of U.P., 2020 (0) Supreme (All) 1193, and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, Civil Appeals Nos. 5151–5152 of 2008, decided 13.08.2008.

The Tribunal found the delay sufficiently explained: the order was sent to the competent authority, referred for legal opinion, and the Review Application was prepared and vetted thereafter. In light of the jurisdictional High Court’s ruling on maintainability, it condoned the delay.

On review, the Tribunal found no apparent error. The earlier O.A. had been considered in the order under review, and the subsequent representation had resulted in a distinct rejection order dated 10.05.2018. Given the pensionary nature of the claim and the principles governing fresh or recurring causes of action, the res judicata objection did not establish a review ground. Nor did the assertion that service records were missing demonstrate an error apparent on the record. The respondents’ grounds therefore sought, in substance, reconsideration of matters already decided, which falls outside the limited review jurisdiction.

It found no permissible ground to review the order dated 18.08.2025 and dismissed the Review Application. No order as to costs was made, and all miscellaneous applications were disposed of.