Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to introduce previously known facts omitted at the original hearing.

Sathyan Pillai had filed OA No. 2489/2015 seeking promotionary benefits vis-à-vis his immediate junior, Anil Chopra, who had been promoted to the grade of Under Secretary and subsequently Deputy Director in the Railway Board Secretariat Service. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application on 20.03.2023.

The Union of India challenged that order before the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 14306/2023. The High Court disposed of the proceedings on 23.07.2025, observing that material not placed before the Tribunal could not be relied upon in the appeal and granting liberty to the Union to approach the Tribunal by way of review.

The Union filed Review Application No. 193/2025 on 25.11.2025, allegedly relying on Office Order No. 50 of 2024, revised seniority lists, and review DPCs undertaken pursuant to the Tribunal’s earlier decision in OA No. 591/2009, N.K. Sharma v. Union of India.

Since the review was filed 95 days beyond the prescribed period, the Union filed MA No. 5514/2025 seeking condonation of delay. The original applicant opposed both the delay application and the Review Application, contending that the relevant seniority revisions and underlying Tribunal decision were already known to the Union before the Original Application was decided.

Whether the Union had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the 95-day delay in filing the Review Application?

Whether the subsequent/revised seniority position and the decision in OA No. 591/2009 constituted new and important evidence warranting review or recall of the Tribunal’s order dated 20.03.2023?

Whether the revised seniority position affected the original applicant’s entitlement to promotionary relief vis-à-vis Anil Chopra?

The Tribunal applied the principles governing review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Review is confined to limited grounds, including discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced when the order was made, and correction of an error apparent on the face of the record.

Mere failure to place material before the Tribunal at the appropriate stage does not create a ground for review.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that delay must be supported by a specific and satisfactory explanation constituting “sufficient cause”; a general assertion that delay resulted from administrative reasons is inadequate.

The Tribunal held that the Union had not satisfactorily explained the 95-day delay.

The High Court’s order dated 23.07.2025 expressly granted liberty to approach the Tribunal, yet the Union did not explain why it failed to file the Review Application within the prescribed period or within a reasonable time thereafter.

The assertion of administrative delay, without particulars covering the intervening period, did not constitute sufficient cause.

On merits, the Tribunal found that the decision in OA No. 591/2009 and the revised seniority exercise were not newly discovered matters.

The earlier decision was already in existence and within the Union’s knowledge, while the revised seniority list had been issued before the Original Application was decided.

The Union had also relied on the relevant facts before the High Court and had filed an additional affidavit in June 2025.

Consequently, the material could not satisfy the requirement of discovery despite due diligence, nor did it disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.

In any event, the revised seniority position did not displace Sathyan Pillai’s seniority over Anil Chopra, leaving the basis of the original relief unaffected.

It also dismissed RA No. 193/2025 both as time-barred and on merits, finding no permissible ground for review or recall under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

The pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.