Review application for re-hearing on merits not maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

The applicants (respondents in OA) filed a Review Application under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Procedure Rules, 1987, seeking review of an order passed on 06.04.2016 in Original Application No.373/2013.

In OA No. 373/2013, the respondent (applicant in OA) sought directions for the grant of 2nd ACP w.e.f. 18.01.2002 and 3rd MACP w.e.f. 18.01.2008 in grade pay of Rs. 4600/- or similar as per the MACP Scheme.

The applicants alleged that the respondent suppressed material facts in the OA, specifically that he had already been promoted to Pipe Fitter from 2008, but showed himself as a Valveman, and failed to disclose the grant of First ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and a second financial upgradation on 01.07.2013 from grade pay Rs.1900/- to Rs.2400/-.

They also contended that the respondent was not eligible for second upgradation under ACP Scheme due to not passing a Trade Test, a condition precedent for promotion to Pipe Fitter, until 2008 when he was promoted.

The respondent counter-argued that a review application is only maintainable for an error apparent on the face of the record, not for re-deciding merits or on fresh facts and documents not part of the original OA.

He further submitted that previous annexures showed him as a Valveman, and that promotion in the same pay scale (Valveman and Pipe Fitter having the same pay scale) does not constitute a promotion, thereby entitling him to ACP benefits.

The applicants also filed Misc. Application No.08/2017 to condone the delay in filing the Review Application, which was filed eight months after the original order, exceeding the thirty-day limit.

1. Whether the Review Application discloses an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, justifying the review of the order dated 06.04.2016.

2. Whether the grounds raised in the Review Application would amount to re-hearing the matter on merits, which is impermissible in review proceedings.

3. Whether the alleged suppression of material facts by the respondent in the original OA constitutes sufficient grounds for review.

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions akin to a Civil Court's powers under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The interpretation of Order 47 Rule 1, particularly the phrase "any other sufficient reason," was guided by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *State of West Bengal & others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another [2008(3)AISLJ 209]*.

This precedent clarified that review is limited to grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1, that an error must be self-evident and not require a long process of reasoning, that an erroneous order cannot be corrected under the guise of review, and that subsequent events or new evidence not diligently available earlier are not review grounds.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' grounds for review, primarily alleging suppression of facts by the respondent regarding his promotion and prior financial upgradations, did not constitute an error or mistake "apparent on the face of record".

The Tribunal noted that the applicants' pleadings in the Review Application differed from their original reply in the OA.

To allow the review on these grounds would amount to re-hearing the matter on merits, which is not permissible under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in *Kamal Sengupta*.

The court's role in review is to identify errors evident without re-examining the entire case, and the present arguments would require a detailed re-evaluation of previously decided issues and factual assertions not pleaded in the original proceedings.

Since the order sought to be reviewed was not a result of any error or mistake "apparent on the face of record", the review application was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the applicants did not disclose an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, and allowing the prayer would amount to re-hearing the matter on merits, which falls outside the permissible scope of review under the Administrative Tribunals Act and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

No order was made as to costs.