The court clarified the standards for reviewing decisions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that errors must be evident and not require detailed examination.

The background of the matter is that Smt. Gitanjali Panda filed OA No. 504/2024 praying therein that her father was working under the respondent-railways. She being the dependent daughter, after the death of her father, she was entitled to family pension but she was not paid the same. Based on the averments made in the counter and the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent-railways in course of hearing, the said OA was disposed of on 22.11.2024 as under:

“Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that respondents in their counter at page 4, para 8 have stated that as per Para 6 of Rule 5 of Railway Services Pension Rule (RSPR) 1993, the period for which family pension payable (iii) in case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of 25 years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, Respondents have sanctioned 100% family pension in favour of the applicant vide modified PPO No. 20057310200738 vide dated 09.10.2024 w.e.f. 02.12.2020 and submitted letter dated 09.10.2024 to the SBI, CPPC, Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar to disburse the pension to the applicant w.e.f 02.12.2020.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that arrears of family pension is only to be paid to the applicant and direction be issued for the same.

Accordingly the OA is disposed of with a direction to Respondents for grant of arrears of family pension to the applicant within 60 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.”

2. By filing the present RA on 18.12.2024, the respondent- Railways have prayed to modify the said order by directing the General Manger, Union bank of India, Centralized Pension Processing Centre, nd

2 Floor, S-24, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Block-A, Green Park Extension, Green Park, New Delhi -110016 for payment of arrear of family pension for the period from 02.12.2020 to 28.02.2022 to Gitanjali Panda, applicant in OA.

3. In terms of the Rule 17 (3) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and the Notification dated 18th February, 1992 issued by Hon’ble Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Section 5, 12 and 22 of the A.T. Act, 1985, this RA has been placed for consideration on circulation by the Registry.

4. Perused the averments and grounds raised by the respondent- railways/review applicants, in the RA vis a vis the records of the OA and the final order dated 22.11.2024.

5. It is needless to state that under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC , a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC . In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". The above observatiSotna ties ofof rWtifeiesdt Bbeyn tghael decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of v. Kamal Sengupta , (2008) 8 SCC 612 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider what can be said to be "mistake or error apparent on the face of record" and the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held as under:

"22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different