Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on record and cannot substitute an appellate re-hearing on merits.

The Review Applicant, a retired Labour Welfare Commissioner, sought a review of the Tribunal's order dated 04.09.2025

In the original proceedings, the Tribunal partially allowed the applicant's claim by granting interest on delayed gratuity but denied interest on the delayed payment of leave encashment

The denial was based on the interpretation of Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which the Tribunal previously found contained no provision for interest

The applicant filed this review application contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate relevant judicial precedents, such as K.S. Subramanium Nambootiripad v. Union of India, and argued that the absence of a specific bar in the rules should not preclude interest when the delay is not the employee's fault

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 04.09.2025 that warrants the exercise of review jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act

2. Whether a Review Application can be used to seek a rehearing of the matter or a change of opinion on the merits of the case

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which stipulates that the power of review is akin to the powers of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC

Principles established in State of West Bengal others v. Kamal Sengupta, which clarify that a review is maintainable only for "errors apparent on the face of the record" and cannot be used as a "guise of exercise of power of review" to correct an erroneous decision or conduct a rehearing

Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, affirming that a review forum cannot act as an appellate authority to facilitate a change of opinion on merits

The Tribunal examined the grounds for review and determined that the scope of its jurisdiction is strictly limited to correcting self-evident errors that do not require a long process of reasoning

It observed that the original order was passed after hearing both parties and interpreting Rule 39(3) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s arguments—regarding the interpretation of leave rules and the applicability of specific precedents—amounted to seeking a rehearing on merits rather than identifying a clerical or patent error

It further noted that while the applicant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India Ors. vs. Narendra Kumar Sinha (dated 08.05.2023), the Tribunal had already granted liberty in the original order to file a representation in light of subsequent developments

Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds for review as no patent error was discovered in the initial adjudication

It reaffirmed that it cannot sit in appeal over its own decisions through a review application

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Application on the grounds of delay and lack of merit