Shri Bhanwar Singh vs Ministry Of Railways & Ors.

The present Review Application has been filed by the original applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking review and recall of the order dated 12.08.2026 passed in O.A. No. 3020/2026, operative part of which is reproduced hereinbelow :-

By way of review, the original applicant has submitted that well before the representation dated 26.05.2026, he had already submitted representations dated 06.05.2019, 31.07.2023 and 06.10.2023 (collectively Annexure A-24 to the O.A.) and a further representation dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure A-25 to the O.A.), all seeking the very same relief of release of pensionary/retiral benefits, which representations are duly reflected in the Synopsis and List of Dates filed along with the O.A. and formed part of the record before this Tribunal. The applicant submitted that qua the representation dated 10.09.2024 (Annexure A-25) alone, the mandatory period of six months prescribed under Section 20(2)(b) of the Act stood expired on 10.03.2025, i.e. more than seventeen months prior to the filing of the O.A. on 10.08.2026; and qua the earlier representations dated 06.05.2019, 31.07.2023 and 06.10.2023 (Annexure A-24), the said period had expired several years prior to the filing of the O.A., which means that the applicant had already exhausted all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules before filing of the O.A., and the O.A. was very much maintainable on this ground alone, quite independent of and de hors the subsequent representation dated 26.05.2026 (Annexure A-29), which was only in the nature of a further/reiterated representation on the same subject-matter.

It is submitted that because the said mistake/error is manifest and self-evident on the face of the record and does not require any long-drawn process of reasoning or re-appreciation of evidence to discover it, and, therefore, squarely falls within the limited scope of review recognised under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act, which is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It is further stated that the applicant is a superannuated Government employee, aged 62 years, who has been pursuing release of his legitimate retiral dues without success since the year 2019 (and, in substance, since a much earlier date), and grave and irreparable prejudice would be caused to him if he is now relegated to instituting a fresh Original Application, entailing further avoidable delay in the disposal of a matter concerning his post-retiral dues, particularly when the cause of action, on the basis of the earlier representations referred to above, had already fully matured/accrued in his favour well before the O.A. came to be filed.

In support of his contentions, the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal at Guwahati in the case of Kalyan Kumar Das & others Vs. UOI & others (2012(3) (CAT) AISLJ), in which it was held that the word 'ordinarily' used in Sub-section (1) of Section 20 leaves discretion with the Tribunal to entertain an application under Section 19 even where the applicant has failed to avail remedies under relevant service rules, and that an "impugned order" is not a sine qua non for filing the O.A. Hence the judgment dated 12.08.2026 may be recalled in the interest of justice.

It is also submitted that no prejudice, much less any irreparable prejudice, would be caused to the respondents if the impugned order is reviewed and the O.A. is restored to its original number and heard and decided on merits, whereas grave prejudice would be caused to the applicant if the review is declined.

I have carefully considered the grounds urged in the Review Application and perused the order under review. The principal contention of the Review Applicant is that certain earlier representations seeking release of his retiral benefits had been submitted prior to the representation dated 26.05.2026 and that, therefore, the Original Application could not have been dismissed on the ground that the period of six months contemplated under Section 20(2)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had not expired. However, the question before this Tribunal in the present proceedings is not whether another view on the maintainability of the Original Application is possible, but whether the order dated 12.08.2026 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review within the limited scope of Section 22(3)(f) of the Act.

It is significant to note that, although the Review Applicant relies upon representations allegedly submitted in the years 2019, 2023 and 2024, no application seeking condonation of delay was filed along with the Original Application. If the applicant's contention is that his cause of action had already arisen on the basis of the aforesaid representations, it was for him to address, in the Original Application itself, the question of limitation and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law, wherever required. Having failed to do so, the applicant cannot seek, by way of the present Review Application, a reconsideration of the order under review merely by relying upon the dates of earlier representations. The filing of successive representations on the same subject-matter does not, by itself, extend the period of limitation prescribed by law.

The applicant has also contended that the representation dated 26.05.2026 was merely a reiteration of his earlier representations and that the period of six months contemplated under Section 20(2)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 had already expired in respect of the earlier representations. Even if this contention is considered on its own terms, it does not, by itself, establish that the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The present proceedings cannot be converted into a fresh adjudication of the maintainability of the Original Application by re-examining the effect of the earlier representations. The decision relied upon by the applicant does not dispense with the requirement of establishing a legally sustainable ground for review in the facts of the present case. The applicant cannot, however, seek repeated reconsideration of the order under review merely on the ground that dismissal of the Original Application has necessitated recourse to another proceeding. No opinion is expressed on the merits or maintainability of any such proceedings.

There appears to be no error of fact or law which invites intervention of this Tribunal under the review. The review applicant is trying to re-argue the matter and is bringing out the facts which have already been duly considered.

The scope of review is limited to situations where a new evidence has been discovered, which despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant(s) earlier either on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. These principles have been reiterated in :-

On the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, [2008 (3) AISLJ 209]

From the above, it is amply clear that existence of error apparent on the face of record is sine qua non for entertainment of the Review Application. We are convinced that there is no error in our order dated 12.08.2026 passed in the captioned OA and the same does not warrant any interference through review jurisdiction.

The review application is accordingly dismissed in circulation.