Review jurisdiction cannot reopen decided issues absent an error apparent on the record.

The applicants sought review of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 2 July 2026 in O.A. No. 3048/2018, which had rejected their claim concerning an E9A replacement pay scale and consequential revision of pension or family pension.

They argued that the Tribunal had not adequately considered, among other matters, the Cabinet decision, DoT communications, Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and relevant policy documents. They also relied on authorities concerning approval by a competent authority, valid options, and legitimate expectation.

The Tribunal noted that the underlying issue was also pending before the Supreme Court in an SLP.

Whether the applicants had established an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient ground, warranting review of the judgment dated 2 July 2026.

Whether the applicants’ reliance on additional documents and legal authorities justified reconsideration of matters already decided in the original application.

Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, review is confined to grounds such as an error apparent on the face of the record or another legally sufficient basis; it is not an appeal in disguise and does not permit a rehearing or reargument of issues already decided.

As summarised by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer & Anr., Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, decided 31 October 2023, an error requiring a process of reasoning is not ordinarily an apparent error, and a subsequent change in law or decision, by itself, is not a ground for review.

The Tribunal found that the original judgment had already considered the applicants’ claims regarding the E9A replacement scale, Rule 37-A, the Government’s pension liability, and the policy decisions concerning revised pay scales.

The further documents and authorities were, in substance, relied upon to seek a different appreciation of the material and a reconsideration of the merits; they did not disclose a patent error in the judgment.

The Tribunal also declined to pre-judge an issue pending before the Supreme Court, observing that the applicants could advance their points in those proceedings.

Applying the limited review principles, it concluded that the application sought a rehearing rather than correction of an apparent error.

It dismissed R.A. No. 94/2026, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs.