A review cannot reopen adjudicated issues absent an error apparent on the face of the record.

In the original applications, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to extend the benefit of upgraded pay scales under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 with effect from 1 January 1996, together with consequential benefits

The review applicants sought modification of that order, relying on a CBIC policy decision and orders in other proceedings; they requested that the benefit be notional from 1 January 1996 and actual from 21 April 2004

The Tribunal condoned a 203-day delay in filing the Review Application

Whether the reliance on a departmental policy decision and orders from other proceedings established an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review or modification of the original order

Whether the Review Application could be used to reconsider an issue already adjudicated by the Tribunal

The Tribunal applied the limited-review principle: review is not an appeal in disguise and does not permit re-appreciation or reconsideration of an issue already decided; the applicant must establish an error apparent on the face of the record or another ground sufficient to invoke review jurisdiction

The order cites no statute or precedent by name

The Tribunal found that the original order had already considered the parties’ submissions and the relevant material, and had concluded that the applicants were similarly situated to employees who had received retrospective benefits, with no rational basis to restrict the benefit to 21 April 2004

The later-cited departmental policy and orders of other Benches did not, by themselves, demonstrate an error apparent in that reasoning. The request therefore amounted to seeking reconsideration of the merits, which was outside the limited scope of review

It had separately condoned the 203-day filing delay; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs