AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :
The present Review Application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 02.07.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3048/2018.
Learned counsel for the review applicants contended that certain material documents and aspects having bearing upon their claim for revision of pension/family pension were not duly considered while deciding the Original Application.
Reliance has been placed upon the Cabinet decision dated 27.09.2000, the communication dated 04.10.2000, DoT's letter dated 09.11.2000, Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the terms and conditions of absorption dated 04.10.2005. The review applicants have also referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1272/2020, decided on 20.09.2023, wherein the DOT letter dated 09.11.2000 was reproduced, and have contended that the said aspect was inadvertently not considered in the judgment under review.
The review applicants have further relied upon A.K. Bhatnagar Vs. U.O.I. & Other, 1991 (1) SCC 544, contending that the approval accorded by the competent authority could not subsequently be altered or diluted by the subordinate authorities. Reliance has also been placed upon Geetha V.M. Vs. Rethnasenan K. & Ors., 2025 (1) SCR 515, particularly with regard to the requirements of a valid option and the circumstances influencing the exercise thereof. The review applicants have also relied upon Sivanandan C.T. Vs. High Court of Kerala, 2024 (3) SCC 799, in support of their plea relating to the doctrines of procedural and substantive legitimate expectation.
It has further been contended on behalf of the review applicants that the aspect of affordability, sustainability and declining revenue of BSNL could not have been made the basis for denial of the benefit claimed by the review applicants, particularly when, according to them, Rule 37-A did not contain any such stipulation. The review applicants have also questioned the manner in which the matter was examined by the Internal Finance Wing and have relied upon the documents concerning the resource gap consequent upon corporatization.
Pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal contained in the order dated 12.08.2026, the review applicants have also filed their written submissions. In the said written submissions, the review applicants have reiterated the grounds taken in the Review Application and have further referred to the constitution of the Inter-Ministerial Group, its recommendations dated 12.01.2005 regarding the IDA pay scale of Rs.25,000-650-30,200, the subsequent approval by the Union Cabinet dated 02.02.2005, the terms of absorption and the subsequent communications between DoT and DPE.
We have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the judgment sought to be reviewed. A perusal thereof shows that the Tribunal had already examined the review applicants' claim concerning the E9A replacement pay scale, the effect of Rule 37-A, the Government's pensionary liability and the consequential claim for revision of pension. The Tribunal had also considered the policy decisions concerning the revised pay scales and had recorded its reasons for holding that Rule 37-A did not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to formulation of a fresh replacement pay scale or automatic revision of pension on that basis.
The grounds now urged, including the reliance placed upon the aforesaid judgments and the documents referred to by the review applicants, essentially seek a re-appreciation of the material and reconsideration of the issues already adjudicated upon. The judgments relied upon by the review applicants do not, in the facts of the present case, disclose any patent error in the judgment under review. The contention that a particular document or legal proposition ought to have been appreciated differently is, in substance, an attempt to re-argue the matter on merits. We had already noted that issue is also pending before the Apex Court in SLP preferred by the review applicants themselves, therefore, we cannot pre- judge a issue leading to judicial impropriety in over reaching the Highest Court of our land. The review applicants can urge all the points before the Apex Court in said proceedings.
In Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020,Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer& Anr., decided on 31.10.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court succinctly culled out the following principles:
“15.It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others , held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
16.The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -
(i)A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii)A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii)An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv)In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v)A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi)Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii)An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii)Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.”
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the review applicants have failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The present Review Application, in our considered opinion, seeks a rehearing of the matter, which is beyond the permissible scope of review.
In view of the foregoing, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment dated 02.07.2026. Accordingly, R.A. No. 94/2026 is dismissed.
Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.