Pension Payment Orders Alone Do Not Establish Reviewable Errors in Pay Fixation

The review applicant, a retired TGT (Hindi) of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, had filed O.A. No. 388/2019 seeking revision of her pay and pension at par with Smt. Pushpa Sharma, retrospective benefits from 1 January 1996, and grant of one promotional increment upon her promotion from PRT to TGT.

By order dated 27 May 2026, the Tribunal held that the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim for one additional increment and dismissed the Original Application.

The applicant filed the present Review Application under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, contending that the Tribunal had overlooked the latest PPOs placed on record on 11 May 2026.

According to the applicant, those PPOs showed that Smt. Pushpa Sharma continued to receive pension based on a higher last pay than the applicant, demonstrating that the pay anomaly had persisted.

Whether the Tribunal’s order dated 27 May 2026 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987?

Whether the PPOs relied upon by the applicant conclusively established that the alleged pay and pension anomaly continued after the respondents’ pay review and refixation exercise dated 29 October 2014?

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which confer a limited power of review over an order where a legally recognizable ground such as an error apparent on the face of the record is established.

Review jurisdiction is not an opportunity to re-argue the case or secure reconsideration of evidence already assessed.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that pension payment orders (PPOs) are consequential documents based on prior pay fixation and refixation orders; therefore, a PPO by itself does not establish when or how the underlying pay fixation occurred or prove the existence of a continuing pay anomaly.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s reliance on the latest PPOs did not demonstrate an error apparent in the earlier judgment.

The PPOs showed the pension amounts being paid but did not disclose the dates, basis, or legality of the underlying pay fixations and refixations of either employee.

Since the determination of an alleged anomaly required comparison of the relevant pay-fixation orders at the material stages, the PPOs could not, by themselves, establish that the disparity continued after the 29 October 2014 rectification exercise.

The applicant’s argument therefore amounted to a request for reassessment of the evidence and did not identify any patent factual or legal error in the order dated 27 May 2026.

It found no error apparent on the face of the record and held that the PPOs did not conclusively establish a continuing pay or pension anomaly after refixation.

The Review Application was accordingly found to be without merit and dismissed by circulation.