Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent and cannot be used to re-litigate merits as an appeal in disguise.

The Review Applicants (Union of India/Railways) sought a review of the Tribunal's order dated 07.08.2025, which had been passed in favor of the Respondents (Chandra Pal Singh and 27 others) in O.A. No. 2143/2021

The Applicants filed the Review Application with a delay of 167 days, primarily contending that the Tribunal failed to correctly interpret ACP/MACP Scheme rules and the status of training periods as "regular service"

They further argued that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) does not constitute a declaration of law

1. Whether the delay of 167 days in filing the Review Application (R.A.) should be condoned

2. Whether the original order dated 07.08.2025 suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction

review is strictly limited to cases involving an "error apparent on the face of record," the discovery of new material, or other "sufficient reasons"

a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and cannot be used to re-hear a matter on its merits

principle of equal treatment for similarly situated employees as a basis for maintaining judicial consistency

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural delay and condoned the 167-day gap in filing the application

the grounds raised by the Railways—pertaining to training periods, ACP/MACP policy, and judicial precedents—had already been exhaustively considered and adjudicated in the original proceedings

The Applicants failed to identify any specific error apparent on the record and were instead attempting to re-agitate issues already decided

a mere disagreement with the court’s findings or a repetition of previous arguments does not satisfy the legal threshold for a review

The Bench concluded that the original order correctly followed the principle of parity for similarly situated employees

It held that the application was devoid of merit as it sought to re-litigate the matter under the guise of a review, which is impermissible in law

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs