Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta (Sen), J, Anindo Majumdar, ACJ
SHRI M. SURESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (MES) – Respondent
R.A. 351/00029/2025 | M.A. 351/00729/2025 | O.A. 351/00175/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ld. Counsel
For the Respondents: N/A
The scope of review is restricted to correcting evident errors; subsequent developments or non-appearance do not merit a review of the Tribunal's earlier order.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 47, Rule 1 - Limited scope of review application - Review applications are not to be treated as appeals; an error must be apparent on the record for a review to be granted (Paras 7, 8, 9).
(B) Administrative law - Tribunal's authority to review - Error not self-evident cannot justify review; subsequent events or developments cannot be grounds for reviews (Paras 8-10).
(C) Case law references - Review application principles cited from Supreme Court decisions reaffirming limited review grounds (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
The applicant, originally dismissed for limitation, sought to reinstate his application, alleging incorrect dismissal due to lack of appearance.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no errors on record regarding the dismissal based on limitation.
Issues: Whether the dismissal due to non-appearance constitutes an error warranting review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that mere absence does not equate to a self-evident error, reinforcing the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Result: Review and miscellaneous applications are dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility of review application based on absence from initial hearings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. scope of review is to correct self-evident errors. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. review applications must be grounded on established legal principles. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. final determination of the review application leading to dismissal. (Para 11 , 12) |
Per Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:-
The instant Review Application has been filed praying for recalling and reviewing the Order dated 28.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 351/00175/2024 (M. Suresh Kumar v. MES) and to restore the Original Application in its original position.
2. It has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that initially O.A. No. 351/00175/2024 was dismissed on the point of limitation since none appeared on 28.04.2025 to satisfy the Court on the point of limitation and accordingly it was held that the applicant may have lost interest to pursue his matter further.
3. The applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing this Review Application wherein he has stated that he was appointed as Mate (Refrigerator Mechanic) under Respondent No. 6 on the basis of selection process dated 18.02.2013. Incumbents who were appointed as Chowkidar/Safaiwala (Non Industrial Cadre) were given retrospective promotion to the post of Mate (Refrigerator Mechanic) (Industrial Cadre). As per revived seniority list in respect of Mate (Refrigerator Mechanic) wherein the Chowkidar were shown on and above the applicant in the post of Mate (Tradesman) Refrigerator Mechanic). On the basis of the revived seniority list they were granted further promotion. Representation preferred by the applicant was rejected vide Order dated 22.03.2022. Challenging the same, the applicant had filed O.A. No. 351/00175/2024 which was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
4. We have perused the materials available on record.
5. It is noted that as per the applicant, this Tribunal had rejected the O.A. on the ground of limitation since none appeared on behalf of the applicant on the date of hearing of the O.A.
6. We find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record since the applicant has failed to file any Miscellaneous Application towards condonation of delay and despite granting of ample opportunity, he has also failed to substantiate the grounds for delay in filing the Original Application.
7. It is well settled law that the scope of review is limited to correcting self-evident errors.
8. As per several pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz. Parsion Devi & Others Vs. Sumitri Devi & Others [1997(8) SCC 715] and State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Kumar Sengupta [2008(8) SCC 612], the scope of review is very limited, mainly to correcting self-evident errors.
9. In the case of Parsion Devi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". [Emphasis added]
10. Further, in the case of Kamal Kumar Sengupta (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“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 pow
