AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This MA has been filed by the review applicants (original respondents) seeking condonation of 63 days delay in filing the RA.
For the reasons mentioned therein, the MA is allowed. Delay in filing the RA is condoned.
RA No. /2026 in OA No.3190/2015
Through the instant Review Application filed under Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the review applicants (original respondents) have sought review of order dated 15.04.2026 passed in OA No.3190/2015. The operative portion of the said order in OA reads as under:-
“13.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal has no hesitation in holding that the placement of the applicants in MCM grade cannot be treated as a promotion for the purposes of MACP, and consequently, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation upon completion of 20 years of service.
4.Accordingly, the impugned orders dated June, 2014 and 01.09.2014, whereby the applicants were granted only a 3% increment instead of the appropriate Grade Pay of Rs. 4600, are hereby quashed and set aside.
15.The respondents are directed to grant to the applicants the benefit of 2nd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 from the date on which they became due, i.e., upon completion of 20 years of qualifying service, treating the MCM placement as non-promotional in nature.
16.The applicants shall further be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, refixation of pay, and revision of retiral benefits, wherever applicable. The arrears shall be calculated and disbursed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17.It is made clear that in case the aforesaid directions are not complied with within the stipulated period, the applicants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the delayed payment from the date it became due till actual realization.”
The primary contention raised by the review applicants revolves around a re-interpretation of executive circulars and internal policy directives issued by the DOP&T and Ministry of Defence regarding MACP eligibility and placement in the Master Craftsman grade. It is submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the clarification issued by the Principal Controller of Accounts (Factories) Kolkata vide letter dated 31.07.2012 and did not apply the binding clarifications of DOP&T dated 08.10.2013 and 30.06.2015 and subsequent rule position. Furthermore, the review applicants have heavily relied upon the interim stay order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No. 70220/2025 to argue that the matter requires reconsideration.
We have carefully considered the grounds raised in the Review Application and examined the order against which the review has been sought. It is understood that re-evaluating executive instructions or attempting to introduce a fresh interpretation of the same rules already considered during the original hearing does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Granting a review on such reasoning would amount to an impermissible re-hearing of the entire matter on merits, which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. Further, relying on an interim order passed in a separate proceeding does not create a valid ground for review. An interim stay in a distinct case does not automatically invalidate or nullify the substantive legal reasoning already applied by this Tribunal in deciding the present matter on its own merits.
There appears to be no error of fact or law which invites intervention of this Tribunal under the review. The review applicants are trying to re-argue the matter and are 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 :-
Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2004) SCC (L&S) 160
Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others, (1999) 9 SCC 596
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr 2008 (9) SCALE 509
Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers Association & Ors. 2007 9 SCC 369
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] stating therein that “the Tribunal can exercise powers of a Civil Court in relation to matter enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (3) of Section (22) of Administrative Tribunal Act including the power of reviewing its decision.”
At Para (28) of the judgment, the principles culled out by the Supreme Court are as under:-
“(i)The power of Tribunal to review it order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with order 47 Rule (1) of CPC.
(ii)The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii)The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specific grounds
(iv)An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as a error apparent in the fact of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(2) (f).
(v)An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3) (f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or a larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior court
(vii)A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f).
(viii)While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(ix)Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”
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 15.04.2026 passed in the captioned OA and the same does not warrant any interference through review jurisdiction.
The review application is accordingly dismissed in circulation.