Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent errors and cannot serve as an appeal in disguise.

The applicants filed a Review Application seeking to set aside the Tribunal’s judgment dated 05.02.2025, which dismissed their claim for compassionate appointment

The applicants sought appointment under SRO-43 of 1994 following the death of the first applicant’s father (a daily-rated Truck Cleaner) in 1994

The Original Application (OA) was dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay and the deceased's failure to meet the eligibility criteria for regularization

The applicants contended that the Tribunal overlooked departmental communications suggesting the deceased had completed seven years of service and failed to properly appreciate material facts and subsequent Supreme Court rulings

Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason under the limited scope of review jurisdiction to warrant setting aside the judgment dated 05.02.2025.

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with the principles of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which limits review to the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reasons

State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612, establishing that review power cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or because another view is possible, as a review is not an "appeal in disguise"

The Tribunal observed that the applicants’ submissions amounted to an attempt to re-argue the case on its merits rather than pointing out a patent error

It noted that the core issues—specifically the delay in seeking appointment and the deceased's eligibility—had been thoroughly examined in the original judgment

The Tribunal reasoned that an error requiring elaborate arguments or re-appreciation of evidence does not constitute an "error apparent on the face of record"

Regarding the delay, the Tribunal reiterated that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to a bereaved family and cannot be claimed as a vested right several decades after the employee's death

Furthermore, it held that subsequent judgments regarding the regularization of temporary employees were irrelevant, as the primary issue was the extraordinary lapse of time in seeking compassionate appointment

Finally, the Tribunal found that no new evidence was produced, as all referred documents were already part of the original pleadings

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Review Application No. 03/2025 for being devoid of merit

No order as to costs was made