Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue issues absent an apparent error on the record.

The review applicants, serving as Senior Nursing Officers and Assistant Nursing Superintendents at Safdarjung Hospital, had filed OA No. 83/2022 challenging orders concerning fixation of their revised pay under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

They sought fixation at specified revised pay levels, including the benefit of bunching, arrears, interest, and consequential reliefs, relying inter alia on Malbika Deb Gupta v. Union of India .

The OA was heard together with OA No. 4039/2016, and the Tribunal passed an order dated 14.05.2026 directing the respondents to determine the applicants’ pre-revised scale, apply the factor of 1.86, and ensure that the revised pay was not below the prescribed entry-level pay of Rs. 17,140/-.

The applicants sought review, alleging that the Tribunal had attributed an argument to them which they had not advanced, failed to decide their prayers concerning Senior Nursing Officers and Assistant Nursing Superintendents, misapplied the relevant pay-fixation provisions, and committed several factual and typographical errors.

On re-examination, the Tribunal admitted certain typographical and incorrect-reference errors but rejected the substantive grounds of review.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order dated 14.05.2026 contained an apparent error on the face of the record by attributing to the applicants the argument that Rs. 7,450/- should be multiplied by 1.86.

2. Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicants’ prayers and pleadings concerning fixation of pay for Senior Nursing Officers and Assistant Nursing Superintendents.

3. Whether the alleged misapplication of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the relevant Office Memoranda, Malbika Deb Gupta , and the principles of bunching constituted grounds for review rather than an attempt to re-argue the original case.

4. Whether the factual and typographical errors arising from the simultaneous hearing of OA No. 83/2022 and OA No. 4039/2016 warranted correction or substantive review of the order.

The Tribunal applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction, holding that review is available for an apparent error of fact or law on the face of the record, but not for a different interpretation of the evidence, pleadings, or law, or for re-arguing the original case.

On the underlying pay-fixation dispute, the Tribunal considered Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, including Note 2 and Illustration 4A, which govern conversion of pre-revised pay into the revised pay structure and the benefit of bunching.

It also considered the relevant Office Memoranda and the decision in Malbika Deb Gupta v. Union of India , including the principle that revised pay fixation depends upon the employee’s applicable pre-revised scale and cannot automatically be granted uniformly to every employee irrespective of that scale.

The Tribunal further recognised that typographical or clerical mistakes may be corrected where they do not affect the substantive reasoning or conclusion.

The Tribunal held that its reference to multiplication of Rs. 7,450/- by 1.86 was an inference drawn from the applicants’ pleadings and relief clauses, which effectively sought fixation at approximately Rs. 13,860/- after applying the applicable multiplier; therefore, it was not an apparent factual error.

The reference to Malbika Deb Gupta in paragraph 5.9 was not presented as a quotation from that judgment, but merely as a reference to the principle understood by the Tribunal, and thus did not establish an error warranting review.

The Tribunal also rejected the contention that every individual pleading or prayer had to be separately reproduced and answered, observing that the order had to be read as a whole and that the applicants’ subsidiary reliefs depended upon the foundational pay-fixation claim.

It accepted that portions of the order incorrectly drew upon pleadings or material from the connected OA, but found that these were typographical or reference errors caused by the simultaneous hearing of both matters and did not affect the substantive analysis or result.

The remaining grounds were found to seek a fresh interpretation of the pay rules and precedents, amounting to re-argument rather than review.

The Tribunal declined to undertake a substantive review of its order dated 14.05.2026, holding that the applicants had not demonstrated any apparent error of fact or law.

However, it directed the Registry to correct the admitted typographical and incorrect-reference errors, including the reference to the pleadings in OA No. 4039/2016 and the associated material, and to upload the amended order.

The RA was accordingly disposed of by circulation.