Subsequent events cannot constitute an error apparent warranting review.

Rajkumar, a Delhi Police employee, had succeeded in OA No. 3172/2017, wherein the Tribunal, by order dated 7 April 2026, directed the respondents to step up his pay at par with his immediate junior from the date on which the junior began drawing higher pay, together with consequential benefits, but without interest on arrears.

The Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police filed the present Review Application under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, along with an application seeking condonation of 130 days’ delay. The delay was condoned.

The review applicants contended that the pay disparity relied upon in the original judgment was not a genuine anomaly. According to them, the juniors’ pay had been erroneously over-fixed at the time of their third MACP upgradation and was subsequently rectified through fresh fixation orders.

The alleged excess payments were also recovered, resulting in the juniors’ pay being brought at par with Rajkumar’s pay.

The Tribunal noted that neither party had placed the alleged refixation documents on record during the original proceedings and that the OA had been decided on the basis of the material then available.

Whether the subsequent refixation and recovery of excess pay from Rajkumar’s juniors constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 7 April 2026 under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

Whether the Review Application could be used to introduce subsequent events or to re-argue issues already adjudicated in the original proceedings?

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which confers on the Tribunal a power of review analogous to that of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Review is limited to discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier, or to an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be exercised merely to correct an erroneous decision or permit a rehearing.

Relying principally on State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, along with Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, and Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers Association, the Tribunal held that an error requiring a long process of reasoning is not an error apparent and that subsequent events cannot ordinarily be relied upon to show that the original order was vitiated by an apparent error.

The Tribunal held that the issue of pay disparity between Rajkumar and his named juniors had already been examined while deciding the original OA.

The alleged refixation of the juniors’ pay was neither part of the record nor shown to have been placed before the Tribunal during the original proceedings. It was therefore a subsequent administrative development rather than an apparent error discernible from the existing record.

Applying the principles governing review, the Tribunal concluded that the review applicants were attempting to introduce new factual material and re-argue the merits of the original case, rather than identify a patent error of fact or law.

The fact that the department may have subsequently corrected the juniors’ pay did not, by itself, invalidate the original decision based on the material available when the OA was adjudicated.

Finding no error warranting interference with the order dated 7 April 2026, the Tribunal dismissed RA No. 111/2026 in circulation.

The original direction requiring the respondents to step up Rajkumar’s pay at par with his immediate junior and grant consequential benefits therefore remained undisturbed.