O R D E R

1. This order disposes of the Review Application filed by the respondents seeking review of the order dated 10.09.2015 whereby O.A. No. 595/2011 titled Dr. R.S.Prajapati v/s Union of India and others was allowed.

2. In the O.A., applicants were given the relief of being awarded interest on delayed payment of his retiral benefits by way of order dated 10.09.2015, of which the respondents (Union of India) seek a review.

3. The applicant seeks review of the order on the ground:

1) Because despite respondent pleading contributory negligence of applicant, interest @ 18 % is not sustainable;

2) Delay in payment of retiral benefits was not intentional or deliberate but occurred to inter-office correspondence;

3) If order not reviewed, it would raise multiplicity of un-

necessary litigation.

4. I have heard and considered the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record.

5. It is settled law that review jurisdiction is available only on the grounds prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which contains only three grounds –

(i) mistake or error apparent on the face of record;

(ii) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which, even after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the order sought to be reviewed was passed; and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.

6. The law governing the scope of review has been very succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Court in:

I. Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, (1999) 9 SCC

596, 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.

II. Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160, 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.

III. Inder Chand Jain(Dead) Through Lrs, Vs.Motilal (Dead)

Through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663, It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

IV. Review is not appeal in disguised. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India, It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.”

7. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decisions, I have considered the claim of the review petitioner and find out whether a case has been made out by respondents for review of the dated 10.09.2015 whereby O.A.

No. 595/2011 titled Dr. R.S.Prajapati v/s Union of India and others.

8. I have gone through the records of OA No. 595/2011 and of the present R.A. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. The appreciation of evidence/ materials on record, being fully within the domain of the appellate court, cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. In a review petition, it is not open to the Tri