CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH Review Application No. 332/00002/2024 In Re Original Application No. 119 of 2023 This, the 03^rd day of May, 2024 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), 1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

3. Principal Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

4. Principal Financial Adviser, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

5. Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Anand Nagar, Lucknow.

..Review Applicants By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.

VERSUS Suresh Chandra Dixit, aged about 70 years, S/o late Govind Prasad, R/o 584-Ka/27, Bangla Bazar, Old Jail Road, Dilkusha, Lucknow-226002.

…..Respondent/applicant By Advocate: Shri Anurag Dixit.

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member (J):

Heard learned counsel for the review applicants, opposite party and perused the records.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Review Applicants have prayed for review of the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in OA No. 119 of 2023 in re: Suresh Chandra Dixit vs. UoI & Ors., whereby OA has been disposed of as under:-

“11. Accordingly, the OA Succeeds. Impugned order dated 15.02.2023 is quashed. Respondents/ competent authority are directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,40,880/- to the applicant being the case as exceptional one as advised by ACMD/MS, New Delhi and the reference of the same may not be quoted as precedence in other cases.”

4. Learned counsel for the Review Applicants submitted that there is error apparent on the face of record which can be discerned from Annexure No. 7 as payment of Rs. 4,40,888/- is not borne out to the opposite party by review applicants.

Further stated that opposite party concealed the factum of payment of some amount received from Chief Minister Relief fund, hence, order dated 07.11.2023 passed in OA No. 119 of 2023 may be reviewed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party Shri Anurag Dixit argued that payment received from Chief Minister Relief Fund is ex- gratia whereas in the OA reimbursement of medical expenses has been claimed. Further argued that on the pretext of review, judgment cannot be rewritten. If, Review applicants are aggrieved with the judgment, they may file writ before appropriate forum.

6. In the matter of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. with other connected matters [2023 INSC 963], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the following principles:

“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.

7. From the perusal of aforesaid legal proposition of law propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that order can be