Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to raise fresh contentions or seek rehearing.

The Review Applicants challenged the Tribunal’s order dated 26 May 2026, by which their Original Application was disposed of with a direction that they would be bound by, and receive the benefit of, the final decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Manish Kumar, SLP (C) Diary No. 3221/2025, if applicable in accordance with law.

The applicants were represented by counsel when the Original Application was disposed of, and the order was not passed ex parte.

The respondents had submitted that the relevant issue was pending before the Supreme Court and that the Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by the applicants had been stayed; they also did not dispute that the applicants were similarly situated to the parties in the Supreme Court proceedings.

In review, the applicants contended that they were departmental Field Workers who had subsequently worked as Assistant Malaria Inspectors on an ad-hoc basis, whereas the Supreme Court proceedings concerned contractual Assistant Malaria Inspectors.

They asserted that their claim involved regularisation of ad-hoc service and consideration for promotion.

The Tribunal first condoned a delay of 36 days in filing the Review Application.

Whether the delay of 36 days in filing the Review Application ought to be condoned?

Whether the asserted distinction between the applicants’ departmental/ad-hoc status and the contractual status of the employees involved in the Supreme Court proceedings disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 26 May 2026?

Whether the applicants could use review jurisdiction to raise contentions and factual matters allegedly not urged or considered when the Original Application was disposed of?

Whether the order dated 26 May 2026 required recall or reconsideration on the merits of the applicants’ claims for regularisation or promotion?

The Tribunal applied the settled principles governing review jurisdiction: review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record or another legally recognised ground and cannot be used as an appeal, rehearing, or means of introducing a fresh contention.

A factual or legal distinction that requires substantive examination of the parties’ rights and circumstances does not constitute an apparent error warranting review.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the principle that a party represented at the original hearing cannot ordinarily seek review by relying on an objection or argument that was not raised at the appropriate stage.

The Tribunal further recognised that an order disposing of proceedings subject to the outcome of pending Supreme Court litigation did not finally adjudicate the applicants’ substantive claims.

The Tribunal held that the applicants’ distinction between contractual employees and departmental/ad-hoc employees did not reveal an error apparent on the face of the record; determining whether that distinction affected their entitlement would require examination of the merits and factual circumstances.

Since the applicants were represented by counsel when the Original Application was disposed of, and no objection regarding the alleged distinction was recorded, the subsequent attempt to rely on that distinction amounted to raising a fresh contention rather than correcting an apparent error.

The applicants’ reliance on their earlier proceedings, ad-hoc promotion as Assistant Malaria Inspectors, and alleged Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings concerned the substance of their regularisation and promotion claims, not the limited grounds permissible in review.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicants’ assertion that they became aware of the order only on 25 May 2026, noting its inconsistency with the fact that the impugned order was dated 26 May 2026 and observing that the assertion did not explain the failure to raise the relevant distinction at the hearing.

Finally, because the Original Application had not been decided on the merits and the applicants remained entitled to any benefit flowing from the Supreme Court’s final decision, no substantive prejudice or adverse final determination had been occasioned.

It nevertheless held that no error apparent on the face of the record or other valid ground for review had been established.

The Review Application was therefore dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the applicants’ substantive claims for regularisation or promotion.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.