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

The 100 review applicants, Staff Nurses employed under the Government of NCT of Delhi, had filed OA No. 4039/2016 challenging the respondents’ fixation of their revised pay under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

They sought fixation at ₹13,860 plus Grade Pay of ₹4,600, consequential arrears and interest, and relied, inter alia, on the decision in Malbika Deb Gupta v. Union of India and related proceedings.

The Tribunal’s order dated 14 May 2026—referred to inconsistently in the record as dated 14 May 2025 at one place—partly allowed the OA and directed the respondents to multiply the applicants’ pre-revised pay by 1.86, compare the result with ₹17,140, and grant the higher applicable amount in accordance with the prescribed pay structure.

The applicants sought review alleging that the Tribunal had attributed an argument to them which they had not advanced, misapplied the Office Memorandum dated 28 September 2018 and the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, misconstrued Malbika Deb Gupta, overlooked material evidence, and failed to address their claim for interest.

They also identified factual and typographical errors in the earlier order.

The respondents opposed the review, contending that the applicants were attempting to re-argue the merits of the OA.

Whether the earlier order disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review on the ground that the Tribunal had attributed to the applicants an argument concerning multiplication of ₹7,450 by 1.86 which they had allegedly not pleaded or argued

Whether the Tribunal had materially misread the decision in Malbika Deb Gupta v. Union of India, the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, or the Office Memorandum dated 28 September 2018 so as to justify review of the merits

Whether the admitted factual and typographical errors in the earlier order required correction

Whether the applicants’ remaining grounds, including their claims regarding pay fixation, material evidence and interest, constituted reviewable errors or merely an attempt to re-argue the case

The Tribunal applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction, under which a review is permissible for an apparent error of fact or law on the face of the record, but not for rehearing the matter, substituting a different interpretation, or re-arguing issues already decided.

On the substantive pay issue, the Tribunal considered the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, including Rule 7 and Note 2, the revised-pay methodology involving the factor of 1.86, and the entry-level pay applicable to Staff Nurses.

It also considered the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 28 September 2018 and the decision in Malbika Deb Gupta v. Union of India, which, according to the Tribunal, did not establish that every Staff Nurse, regardless of pre-revised scale, was automatically entitled to fixation at ₹13,860 plus Grade Pay of ₹4,600.

The Tribunal distinguished correction of an apparent typographical mistake from reconsideration of the substantive merits.

The Tribunal held that the alleged attribution of the ₹7,450 × 1.86 argument was an inference drawn from the applicants’ pleadings and reliefs, which sought fixation at approximately ₹13,860 plus Grade Pay of ₹4,600.

It therefore found no apparent factual error in the earlier order.

The Tribunal rejected the allegation that it had stated that paragraph 5.9 of the earlier order was quoted from Malbika Deb Gupta; it had merely referred to that decision while explaining its understanding of the applicable principle.

Although it admitted that certain portions of the earlier order incorrectly referred to paragraphs that did not exist in the respondents’ reply, it treated those defects as typographical errors having no effect on the outcome.

The remaining grounds challenged the Tribunal’s interpretation of the pay rules, the OM dated 28 September 2018, the cited precedents, and the evidence.

Since these grounds sought a fresh examination of the merits and a preferred interpretation of the record, rather than correction of an error apparent on the face of the record, they were held not to justify review.

The Registry was directed to incorporate the corrections identified in paragraphs 5 and 8 of the review order and upload the amended order.

The applicants’ substantive objections to the pay-fixation directions, interpretation of the CCS (RP) Rules, reliance on Malbika Deb Gupta, treatment of the 2018 OM, and non-grant of interest were rejected as either lacking an apparent error or amounting to re-argument of the case.

The RA was accordingly disposed of by circulation.