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

The review applicants, comprising the Union of India and authorities of the Ministry of Defence and India Optel Limited, sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 15 April 2026 in O.A. No. 3190/2015.

In that order, the Tribunal held that placement of the applicants in the Master Craftsman (“MCM”) grade was not a promotion for the purposes of the Modified Assured Career Progression (“MACP”) Scheme and directed grant of the second financial upgradation in Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600 upon completion of 20 years of qualifying service, along with consequential benefits and arrears.

The review applicants contended that the Tribunal had failed to consider relevant clarifications issued by the Principal Controller of Accounts (Factories), the Department of Personnel and Training, and the Ministry of Defence concerning MACP eligibility and MCM placement.

They also relied on an interim stay order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP Diary No. 70220/2025.

An application seeking condonation of 63 days’ delay in filing the Review Application was allowed.

Whether the review applicants established an error apparent on the face of the record or any other legally permissible ground warranting review of the Tribunal’s order dated 15 April 2026 under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether re-interpretation of executive circulars and reliance on clarifications or an interim order passed in separate proceedings could justify review of the original decision.

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the Tribunal possesses a power of review analogous to that of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Review is limited to discovery of new and important evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not previously be produced, or to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, and Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers Association, which establish that review cannot be used as an appeal or for correction of an allegedly erroneous decision requiring reappraisal of the merits.

In particular, State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta holds that an error requiring a long process of reasoning is not an error apparent, that an erroneous decision cannot be corrected in review, and that subsequent events or judgments ordinarily cannot be relied upon to invalidate the original decision.

The Tribunal held that the review applicants were essentially seeking reconsideration of the executive instructions and policy clarifications governing MACP benefits and MCM placement, matters which had already been considered in the original proceedings.

Re-arguing the interpretation or applicability of those circulars would require a fresh examination of the merits and therefore fell outside the narrow scope of review jurisdiction.

The interim stay granted by the Supreme Court in a separate proceeding did not, by itself, demonstrate any error in the Tribunal’s order or nullify the reasoning independently adopted in the present case.

Since the applicants identified neither a self-evident error, newly discovered evidence unavailable despite due diligence, nor any analogous sufficient reason, the statutory and precedential requirements for review were not satisfied.

It found no error apparent on the face of the record or other permissible ground for reviewing its order dated 15 April 2026.

Accordingly, the Review Application was dismissed in circulation.

The order condoning the 63-day delay in filing the Review Application was separately allowed, but no relief was granted on the merits.