Power of Review Cannot Be Exercised to Re-Agitate Merits or Correct Allegedly Erroneous Decisions.

The applicant, an employee of the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), filed a Review Application (RA) seeking to review the Tribunal's final order dated 21.04.2026.

In the original OA, the applicant challenged his transfer from Kanpur, citing DoP&T guidelines regarding the posting of husband and wife at the same station, his mother’s critical medical condition (Advanced ILD), and the mid-academic session timing of the transfer.

The Tribunal had previously disposed of the OA at the admission stage with a direction to the competent authority to decide the applicant’s pending representation.

The applicant filed this RA contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate his personal hardships and failed to grant interim relief before relegating the matter to administrative authorities.

1. Whether there exists any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 21.04.2026 that warrants the exercise of review jurisdiction.

2. Whether a review application can be maintained for the purpose of re-arguing the merits of the case or seeking a different view on the same facts.

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the power of review akin to a Civil Court under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan, which clarifies that a review is not a re-hearing and is limited to "mistakes apparent".

Principles consolidated in State of West Bengal & Others v. Kamal Sengupta, which mandate that an error must be self-evident and not require a long process of reasoning to be discovered, and that an erroneous decision cannot be corrected under the "guise of a review".

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s contentions regarding the DoP&T guidelines and personal hardships were already considered or were available during the initial adjudication of the OA.

It found that the applicant was attempting to reopen and re-argue the entire matter, which exceeds the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

The Bench noted that the final order was passed with the consent of both parties' counsel and followed settled legal positions regarding transfer matters.

Since the applicant failed to demonstrate any "self-evident" error or discovery of new evidence that was not within his knowledge previously, the Tribunal determined that his grievances reflected a disagreement with the decision rather than a procedural or factual mistake apparent on the record.

The Court clarified that if the applicant believes the Tribunal’s view is erroneous, the remedy lies in a higher forum (appeal), not through a review. All pending Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of.