Section 152 CPC permits correction of clerical errors only and cannot be invoked for substantive review of judgments.

The applicant department (Union of India) filed a Miscellaneous Application (MA) seeking clarifications regarding an earlier order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 2732/2024

In the original judgment, the Tribunal ruled that the respondents' (original applicants) regular service as Engineer (Group A) should be counted from the vacancy year 2017–18

It further specified that the period between their initial joining on 24.10.2016 and the start of the 2017–18 panel year was to be treated as ad-hoc service, granting them seniority for subsequent promotions but denying other consequential benefits

The department sought clarification on whether these benefits extended to Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) and whether other officers (SC category) promoted in different vacancy years were entitled to similar treatment

1. Whether the queries raised by the department regarding the scope of the judgment and its applicability to other officers constitute clerical or arithmetical errors rectifiable under Section 152 of the CPC

2. Whether an application for clarification can be maintained to seek a substantive modification or review of a reasoned judicial order

Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provides for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission

Section 152 cannot be invoked for the review, alteration, or reinterpretation of a reasoned judicial order, nor can it be used to seek fresh adjudication on issues not part of the original relief

The Tribunal observed that the original directions in paragraph 23 of the judgment were "explicit" and "leave no ambiguity," indicating a conscious adjudication of the dispute

It found that the department, under the guise of "clarification," was actually seeking a reconsideration of the findings based on DoP&T Office Memoranda dated 10.04.1989 and 13.08.2021

The Tribunal reasoned that such substantive challenges must be addressed through an appeal to a higher forum rather than a miscellaneous application

The Tribunal noted that the department’s queries regarding NFU entitlement and the status of SC category officers amounted to a request for fresh adjudication on merits, which falls outside the limited scope of Section 152 CPC

It concluded that the MA was an impermissible attempt to seek a review or modification of a final order

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the MA for clarification as devoid of merit and disposed of the associated MA for preponement