Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate facts or revisit merits absent apparent error.

The Union of India and the Director General, Central Bureau of Communication, sought review of the Tribunal’s common order dated 25 September 2025 disposing of O.A. No. 4452/2024 along with O.A. Nos. 4459/2024 and 4471/2024.

They argued that the applications involved materially different facts and reliefs: Nayak’s case concerned the 2nd MACP, while the other applicants’ cases concerned the 3rd MACP; they also contended that the prayer for promotion to Grade-I Senior Instrumentalist from June 2017 had not been specifically addressed.

They sought review and fresh, independent adjudication.

Whether the common disposal of the connected Original Applications, despite asserted differences in their facts and reliefs, disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Whether the alleged failure to specifically address the promotion prayer, or the direction concerning consideration of 3rd MACP, warranted review of the order dated 25 September 2025.

The Tribunal applied the settled principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction or to reappreciate facts and merits; review requires a patent error apparent on the face of the record or another sufficient ground.

It also held that disposing of connected matters by a common order does not, by itself, constitute such an error, particularly where the matters arise from the same impugned action and involve overlapping questions.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ grounds sought reconsideration of individual service particulars, factual circumstances, and claimed reliefs rather than identifying a patent error in the earlier order.

Although the applicants distinguished Nayak’s 2nd MACP claim from the other applicants’ 3rd MACP claims and raised the promotion prayer, the Tribunal concluded that these matters did not satisfy the restrictive standard for review.

It further held that paragraph 7.1 of the earlier order provided for case-by-case consideration of 3rd MACP, so any grievance about implementation of that direction was not an error apparent warranting review.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.