Review application cannot be an appeal; no error found in original order.

Kalsh Kunwar, the review-applicant, sought a review of the order dated 21.12.2024 issued in OA No.3700/2022

The review-applicant contended that the prior order contained "apparent error on the face of it as the entire facts and arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for the applicant has totally been misplaced as well as misconceived, misread and misquoted by their lordships".

The applicant's counsel reiterated judgments from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in *Kuntesh v. Union of India*, WP (C) No. 11934/2015, and *Union of India v. Kuntesh*, WP (C) No. 10013/2019, arguing these established a rule of law for family pension entitlement for widows of employees with temporary status.

The respondents, however, argued that the review application was an attempt to re-argue the case, akin to an appeal, and that no error of fact or law was apparent on the record.

1. Whether there was an "apparent error on the face of it" in the order dated 21.12.2024 in OA No.3700/2022, warranting a review

2. Whether the case laws cited by the review-applicant, particularly *Union of India v. Kuntesh*, were misapplied or unconsidered in the original order

The Tribunal considered the scope of review applications, noting they are limited and do not permit re-arguing a case as an appeal.

It referenced guidelines from the Apex Court in *Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati*, (2013) 8 SCC 320, which delineate the limited grounds for review.

The Tribunal also distinguished between judgments *in personam* and *in rem*, stating that judicial precedents are applicable universally only if they establish a rule of general application, not merely a case-specific outcome based on compassion.

The *Uma Devi* judgment was cited as setting the "golden standard for regularization of temporary employees," emphasizing that regularization should not encourage "backdoor entry" and must adhere to "one-time policy" for duly recruited individuals.

The Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993, was also considered, which does not envisage "deemed regularisation" irrespective of available vacancies.

The Tribunal found that the original order dated 21.12.2023 had indeed considered the case laws cited by the applicant, including the Delhi High Court's judgment in *Kuntesh*.

However, the Tribunal had explicitly differentiated these judgments, deeming them *in personam* (specific to the parties involved) rather than *in rem* (establishing a universal rule of law).

The order detailed that these judgments, while providing relief on compassionate grounds, did not interpret existing rules or strike down the 1993 Scheme, or establish a vested right for "deemed regularisation" for all temporary status employees.

The Tribunal reasoned that applying the *Kuntesh* precedent universally to grant pensionary benefits would nullify the spirit of the *Uma Devi* judgment, which discourages "backdoor entry" and mandates a structured regularization policy.

The 1993 Scheme does not provide for "deemed regularisation" without regard to vacancies.

Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the original order did not suffer from an error of facts or law on its face.

It concluded that the order dated 21.12.2023 in OA No.3700/2022 did not suffer from any "error on facts or law on face of records".

The learned counsel for the review-applicant was deemed to have attempted to reargue the case, effectively treating the review application as an appeal.

Consequently, the present Review Application was dismissed.

No order as to costs was made.