Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue issues already considered and rejected.

Rajan Ninan, a retired Southern Railway Station Manager, challenged the date from which he was granted his third Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP).

The Railway granted the upgradation to Grade Pay ₹5,400 with effect from 1 September 2018; Ninan sought it from 16 February 2018, relying on a Railway Board order concerning the treatment of promotion from Assistant Station Master to Station Master for MACP purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed his original application on 28 August 2025. He then sought review, contending that the Tribunal’s treatment of his service and promotions involved an error apparent on the face of the record.

The respondents opposed review, arguing that he was seeking a rehearing and reappraisal of issues already decided.

1. Whether the applicant established an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dismissing his original application

2. Whether the applicant could use review proceedings to obtain reconsideration of the Tribunal’s interpretation of his service history and MACP entitlement

The review application was brought under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, and the Tribunal considered the grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Review is confined to recognised grounds, including an error apparent on the face of the record; it is not a means to reargue a case, reassess evidence, or secure a different interpretation of matters already decided.

An alleged error requiring reconsideration or extended reasoning does not, by itself, establish an error apparent.

The Tribunal noted that the original application had already considered the relevant service history and the Railway Board order.

In that decision, it had found that service before 31 March 1989 could not be reckoned for the purpose at issue and had considered the applicant’s representation of 25 September 2018, in which he claimed entitlement to Grade Pay ₹5,400 from 1 September 2018.

The review grounds asked the Tribunal to revisit its conclusions about the applicant’s promotions and MACP entitlement, rather than identifying a self-evident error or another recognised ground for review.

The Tribunal therefore declined to re-evaluate the materials or rehear the original dispute.

The review application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.