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

The applicant, a retired Chief Accounts Officer, sought review of the Tribunal’s judgment dismissing his claim for retrospective promotion, financial upgradation and a promotional increment.

He had been placed under deemed suspension from 15 June 2009 while criminal proceedings were pending and was acquitted on 29 July 2021.

The competent authority’s orders dated 6 June and 24 July 2023 treated the suspension period as duty only for qualifying service for post-retirement benefits; those orders were not challenged in O.A. No. 694/2025, although the applicant stated that they were challenged in a separate pending O.A. No. 693/2025.

The applicant argued that the earlier judgment overlooked the separate proceeding, misapplied Ram Ashish Dixit, and failed to account for his acquittal and the treatment of his suspension period.

1. Whether the judgment under review contained an error apparent on the face of the record because it noted that the 2023 orders had not been challenged in O.A. No. 694/2025, despite the applicant’s assertion that they were challenged in a separate pending O.A.

2. Whether the applicant’s arguments concerning the effect of his acquittal, the applicability of Ram Ashish Dixit, Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and the treatment of suspension-period pay disclosed a ground for review rather than an attempt to reopen the merits.

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, provides the basis for seeking review before the Tribunal.

As reiterated in State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, review is not an appeal or a rehearing: an error requiring reasoning or reappreciation is not ordinarily an error apparent on the face of the record, and review must rest on a recognised ground such as a manifest error or discovery of new and important material.

The Tribunal also referred to Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, Pawan Kumar Tiwary v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and Ram Ashish Dixit v. Purbanchal Gramin Bank in the underlying O.A. in connection with promotion and service benefits during or following proceedings.

Rule 10 was invoked by the applicant concerning separate causes of action, but the Tribunal held that this contention did not establish a reviewable error.

The Tribunal held that the earlier judgment correctly recorded that the 2023 orders had not been challenged in O.A. No. 694/2025; the asserted challenge in another proceeding did not change that procedural fact or establish an error in the judgment under review.

The applicant’s arguments about separate causes of action, acquittal, the applicability of Ram Ashish Dixit, and the denial of 5% of pay and allowances either concerned the merits of his substantive claim or sought a fresh assessment of matters already considered.

The Tribunal had found that treating the suspension period as duty for qualifying service did not itself confer a right to retrospective promotion, financial upgradation or an increment.

The applicant identified neither new and important evidence nor a manifest error capable of correction without rehearing the case.

It dismissed the Review Application and made no order as to costs.