ORDER

(By Circulation)

The review petitioner was applicant in OA No.3053 of 2014. The present Review Application is filed by her under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated

28.9.2015 passed by the Tribunal dismissing OA No.3053 of 2014.

2. In Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), 1995(1) SCC 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evidence and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured in a review proceedings.

3. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing, or arguments, or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.

4. In Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate court in respect of the original order by a fresh order and rehearing the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits.

5. In State of West Bengal and others v. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 735, the Hon’ble Apex Court has scanned various earlier judgments and summarized the principles laid down therein which read thus:

“35. The principles which can be culled out from the above-

noted judgments are:

(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its 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 CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(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 larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.

(vii) 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.

(viii) 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.”

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & others, 2013(8) SCC 320, has laid