Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-argue matters already adjudicated absent an error apparent on the record.

The applicant filed a Review Application under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking review of the Tribunal’s order dated 1 April 2026 in O.A. No. 110/2024.

The original application had been disposed of on the ground that the respondents had enhanced the applicant’s subsistence allowance to 75% with effect from 23 April 2024 and, consequently, “nothing survives to be adjudicated upon”.

In review, the applicant contended that her grievance was confined to the period from 25 October 2023 to 23 April 2024, during which the subsistence allowance had allegedly remained at 50% without statutory justification.

She alleged that the Tribunal had failed to examine the legality of the order dated 25 October 2023 under Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a), particularly when she was not responsible for any delay in the departmental or criminal proceedings.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order dated 1 April 2026 contained an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to adjudicate the applicant’s claim concerning subsistence allowance for the period from 25 October 2023 to 23 April 2024?

2. Whether the subsequent enhancement of subsistence allowance to 75% rendered the original application infructuous, such that no dispute survived for adjudication?

3. Whether the grounds raised by the applicant constituted a permissible basis for review or merely sought re-argument and re-adjudication of the original matter?

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, under which the Tribunal’s review power is analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Review is confined to discovery of new and important evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds; it cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision, reconsider evidence, or re-argue the case.

The Tribunal relied on Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2004) SCC (L&S) 160; Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, (1999) 9 SCC 596; State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, 2008 (9) SCALE 509; and Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers Association, (2007) 9 SCC 369.

Enhancement of subsistence allowance under Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a) is discretionary, but the discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and on the basis of cogent reasons.

The Tribunal held that the respondents had already enhanced the applicant’s subsistence allowance to 75% from 23 April 2024 after considering the applicable provision and the circumstances of the suspension.

On that basis, it concluded in the original order that no live relief remained to be granted.

In review, the applicant sought examination of the earlier 180-day period, alleged non-application of Fundamental Rule 53(1)(ii)(a), and reliance on the decision in Puneet Kumar Duggal. The Tribunal treated these submissions as an attempt to reopen the merits rather than demonstrating a patent and self-evident error in the earlier order.

It emphasized that an error discoverable only through an extended process of reasoning is not an “error apparent on the face of the record,” and that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to substitute a different view on the merits.

The Tribunal therefore found no reviewable error of fact or law.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had failed to establish any new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The original order disposing of O.A. No. 110/2024 on the ground that nothing survived for adjudication was consequently left undisturbed.