Review cannot serve to reargue issues already considered without new grounds warranting reconsideration.

The respondents in the original application, Union of India and Railway authorities, sought review of the Tribunal’s order dated 7 September 2026.

That order had directed them to pay compensation of ₹8,00,000 to each of the 17 applicants, former casual labourers declared unsuitable in a screening test for being overaged.

The Tribunal had relied on Ramesh Chandra Bari v. Union of India and the related Supreme Court proceedings.

In review, the applicants repeated grounds and pleadings previously raised in the original proceedings; the Tribunal found no new fact or matter warranting reconsideration.

1. Whether the review applicants established a basis to review the Tribunal’s order dated 7 September 2026

2. Whether repetition of arguments and pleadings already considered in the original application justified review

The Tribunal applied the principle that review is not a substitute for an appeal: a party dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision may approach a higher judicial forum, while review requires a ground warranting reconsideration rather than merely reiterating matters already considered.

The original order had relied on the Allahabad High Court judgment in Ramesh Chandra Bari v. Union of India and the Supreme Court proceedings in SLP (C) No. 22533 of 2025 as the basis for the compensation awarded in the original application.

The review judgment identifies no statutory provision or separate review precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the review application substantially repeated the respondents’ counter-affidavit pleadings and arguments from the original proceedings.

It stated that those submissions and the parties’ materials had been considered when deciding the O.A.; the review applicants presented no new fact or other matter capable of altering that decision.

The Tribunal therefore considered review an inappropriate means of renewing arguments already addressed and observed that the applicants could instead pursue a higher judicial forum if dissatisfied.

The compensation directions in the original order were not disturbed.