Pendency of a Special Leave Petition does not constitute an error apparent for review.

The applicant (Eastern Railway) sought a review of the Tribunal's order dated 25.02.2026, which had directed the administration to extend restructuring benefits under RBE No. 177/2003 and RBE No. 103/2013 to the respondent.

The original order was based on the premise that the issue was squarely covered by a previous Tribunal order dated 23.04.2015, which had been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court on 12.11.2025.

The Railway moved this Review Application (RA) on the grounds that they had since filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP Diary No. 12985/2026) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the High Court's judgment.

They requested the Tribunal to adjourn the operation of the original order sine die to avoid potential contradictions should the SLP succeed.

1. Whether the filing of a Special Leave Petition (at the diary stage) against a precedent-setting judgment constitutes a valid ground for review or an "error apparent on the face of the record".

2. Whether the Tribunal can review its decision based on subsequent developments or the possibility of a future reversal by a superior court.

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which limits review powers to those analogous to Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997), establishing that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and is limited to correcting self-evident errors.

State of West Bengal v. Kamal Kumar Sengupta (2008), which clarifies that an order cannot be reviewed based on a subsequent decision of a superior court, nor can an erroneous decision be "reheard" under the guise of a review.

The Tribunal reasoned that the scope of review is strictly confined to correcting "self-evident errors" and not for re-evaluating the merits of a case.

The applicants failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record that existed at the time of the initial decision.

Heavily citing Kamal Kumar Sengupta, the Tribunal noted that a review must be based on materials available at the time of the judgment and that subsequent events—such as the filing of an SLP—do not vitiate the original order.

The Tribunal observed that the SLP was only at the "Diary Number" stage and emphasized that law would take its own course if the Supreme Court eventually passed a conflicting order, but this anticipated possibility does not satisfy the legal requirements for a review.

The mere filing of an SLP against the judgment relied upon in the original order is not a sufficient ground for review under the established principles of law.

The Review Application was dismissed as devoid of merit; no costs were awarded.