CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH Review Application No. 332/00035/2024 In Re Original Application No. 198/2019 This, the 06^th day of November, 2024 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), Satpal Chandock, aged about 61 years, s/o late Dharampal, R/o

52, Samrati Vihar Colony, Ashiyana, Kanpur Road, Lucknow.

..Review Applicant By Advocate: Shri Arvind Kumar.

VERSUS

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

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

3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Lucknow.

4. Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Lucknow.

…..Opposite parties By Advocate: -------.

O R D E R (UNDER CIRCULATION)

Perused the records.

2. Review Applicant has prayed for review of the order dated 20.09.2024 passed in OA No. 198 of 2019 in re: Satpal Chandock vs.

UoI & Ors. whereby OA has been disposed of as under:-

“13. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.05.2018 is quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh order after due opportunity of hearing is given to the applicant.

The above exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of received a certified copy of this order.”

3. 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.

4. From the perusal of aforesaid legal proposition of law propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that order can be reviewed, inter-alia, on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record.

5. The case of the review applicant is that this Tribunal failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the claim of the review applicant against recovery of the amounts paid in excess had not been processed by opposite parties in terms of the judgment passed in the matter of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., Office Memorandum dated 02.03.2016 of the DoPT and Railway Board’s letter No. 2016/F(E)II/6/3 dated 22.06.2016 as there is no permission of making the recovery from the amount paid to the employees.

Further prayed that order dated 20.09.2024 passed in OA No. 198 of 2019 may be reviewed and direct the opposite parties to release his retirement benefits without any deduction.

6. The alleged error as pointed out by learned counsel for the review applicant can be decided only through long drawn process of reasoning. Hence, it cannot be termed as error apparent on the face of record.

Under the guise of review, rewriting of judgme