Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur Review Application No.2003/2020 in Original Application No.2119/2014 Date of Decision : 18^th February, 2026 CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)

Hon’ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

Mrs. Veera Seema Manish Naidu Aged:47 Years, Occupation- Service, Flat No.305, Balasaheb Deoras Bldg.

No.1, Sir Bezongi Mehta Road, Opposite Gandhi Sagar Lake, Nagpur – 440 018. … Review Applicant (By Advocate Shri Devendra Mohgaonkar)

Versus

1. The General Manager, Central Railway, GM’s Office, Mumbai CST 400 001.

2. The Divl. Railway Manager, DRM’s Office, Kingsway, Nagpur – 440 001.

3. Sr. Divl. Finance Manager, Central Railway, DRM’s Office Kingsway, Nagpur – 440 001. …Review respondents (By Advocate Shri N.P. Lambat)

ORAL ORDER Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (J)

The Review Applicant has filed the present Review Application under Section 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking review of the Order dated 01.08.2019 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.2119/2014.

2. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply to RA and contested the same. They have stated that the RA is not maintainable as the applicant has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record in the Tribunal’s order dated 01.08.2019 and the same is and needs to be dismissed.

3. We have considered the rival submission and perused the aforesaid order dated 01.08.2019 and also the contents of RA. We find that our decision is based on our fact finding and there appears no error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new material, which was not available with the review applicant at the time of final hearing. If the review applicant is not satisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, remedy lies elsewhere. By way of this RA, she is trying to re-argue the case, which is not permissible in terms of the provisions contained in Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Order XLVII, Rule (1) of CPC, and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 2004 SCC (L&S) 160.

4. This Tribunal has passed the order dated 01.08.2019 after going through the pleadings, records and relief sought as also the circumstances under which the impugned order in the OA was passed.

5. Further, on the power of the Tribunal to review its own orders, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down clear and exhaustive guidelines in its judgment in the case of State of West Bengal & Others v Kamal Sengupta and another (2008(3) AISLJ 209). The prayer of the review applicant is actually an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in the garb of a Review Application which is not permissible as per law.

6. In view of the above, the RA is dismissed. No costs.

(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna)

Member (J) Member(A)

ma.