Limited Scope of Review Jurisdiction Precludes Rehearing of Merits Absent Apparent Error on Record

The applicant, a retired postal employee, filed a Review Application (RA) against the Tribunal's order dated 06.08.2019, which had dismissed his original application (OA).

The applicant was promoted and posted as Senior Superintendent of RMS (SSRM), 'N' Division, on 24.10.2011, a post carrying a Senior Time Scale (STS) Group-A pay scale.

He discharged these duties until his retirement on 30.11.2011.

The original OA was dismissed on the grounds that the applicant had not completed the requisite four years of service in the Junior Time Scale (JTS) to qualify for STS promotion via a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The applicant sought review on the basis that he never prayed for regular promotion, but only for the pay scale of the higher post he actually manned.

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal’s order dated 06.08.2019 that warrants a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

2. Whether the applicant's claim for higher pay for the period he discharged higher responsibilities constitutes a ground for review after the dismissal of the OA on merits.

The Tribunal applied the principles governing the power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

It relied on Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, which establishes that review is only proper for glaring omissions or patent mistakes.

It cited Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, clarifying that review is not an appellate power and cannot be exercised on the ground that a decision is erroneous on merits.

Furthermore, it applied the definition of "error apparent" from State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, which stipulates that an error must be self-evident and not require a long process of reasoning or debate.

The Tribunal examined the applicant’s contention that the court misconstrued his prayer for a "pay scale" as a prayer for "promotion".

However, the Tribunal observed that the original dismissal was based on circulars dated 17.10.2001 and 27.07.1999, which linked the status of the post to the status of the officer, requiring a DPC and four years of service for STS eligibility.

In the review proceedings, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s arguments amounted to an attempt to re-argue the merits of the case.

It reasoned that even if a different view could have been taken on the facts or law, such a "wrong decision" does not constitute an "error apparent on the face of the record".

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any patent mistake that didn't require a "bird's-eye view" or detailed scrutiny to detect.

The Tribunal dismissed the Review Application. The court affirmed that review proceedings are strictly confined and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. No costs were awarded.