Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 CAT CK 2687

Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Shahnaz Perveen & Anr.

Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 10 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manish Garg, Member (J) · Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
CASE NUMBER
M.A. No. 4314/2026 in DY. No.8320/2026 (RA) in O.A. No. 1683/2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 377 words

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

M.A. No. 4314/2026

For the reasons mentioned in the Miscellaneous Application, we allow the same and condone the delay of 161 days in filing the accompanying Review Application filed vide Dy. No. 8320/2026.

Review Application (Dy. No. 8320/2026)

The present Review Application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by this that the amount of Rs. 35,400/- referred to in the decision of SDMC dated 21.11.2017 corresponds to Level-6 of the 7th CPC Pay Matrix and not Level-7.

2.

We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and perused the record. The grievance raised in the present Review Application essentially seeks reconsideration/clarification of the basis on which the benefit flowing from the decision of SDMC dated 21.11.2017 was extended to the applicants. The applicant has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.

3.

It is also pertinent to note that the order dated 21.05.2025 was an oral order, passed in the presence of learned counsel for both sides. If there was any apparent discrepancy with regard to the Pay Matrix Level corresponding to the amount of ₹35,400/-, the same could have been brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of hearing itself. No such clarification or objection appears to have been raised before the order was pronounced.

4.

It is well settled that the power of review is limited and cannot be exercised for rehearing or re-appreciation of the matter merely because another view or interpretation is possible. A review cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise.

5.

In the present case, the directions contained in the order dated 21.05.2025 were issued after considering the rival submissions and the material placed on record. The mere assertion that Rs. 35,400/- corresponds to Level-6 under the 7th CPC Pay Matrix does not, by itself, constitute an error apparent on the face of the record so as to warrant review of the order.

6.

Accordingly, finding no ground for review within the limited parameters of review jurisdiction, the present Review Application is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.