CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR Review Application No.03/2017 with Misc. Application No.8/2017 in Original Application No.373/2013 Pronounced on : 09.03.2026 Reserved on : 20.01.2026 CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE DR. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)

1. Union of India through the secretary, Ministry of Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Commander Works Engineer (Air force), MES, Bikaner.

3.Garrison Engineer, (Air Force), MES, Suratgarh, District, Sriganganagar. ….…Applicant By Advocate: Mr. B.L. Tiwari Versus Krishan Gopal S/o Diwan Chand, aged about 53 years, working as Pipe Fitter in the office of applicant No.3, resident of Badopal Road, Ward No. 19, Suratgarh, District Srigananagar.

……..Respondent By Advocate: Mr. J.C. Singhvi ORDER Per Hon’ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A)

The applicants (respondents in OA) have filed this Review Application under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Procedure Rules, 1987 seeking review of the order passed by this Bench on 06.04.2016 in Original Application No.373/2013.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 In OA No. 373/2013, the respondent (applicant in OA) sought the directions to grant him benefit of 2^nd ACP w.e.f. 18.01.2002 and 3^rd MACP w.e.f. 18.01.2008 in grade pay of Rs. 4600/- or in any other grade pay as per MACP Scheme. In the OA, he has shown himself as posted on the post of Valveman instead of promotional post Pipe Fitter whereas on the day of filing of the OA, the respondent (applicant in OA) had already been promoted and he had been working from 2008 itself. Secondly, the applicant did not disclose the fact of grant of First ACP w.e.f. 09.08.1999 and second financial upgradation extended on 01.07.2013 from grade pay Rs.1900/- to grade pay of Rs.2400/-. In this way, the applicant suppressed material facts from this Tribunal while filing of the OA and such facts have escaped from consideration from this Tribunal while allowing the OA filed by the respondent vide order dated 06.04.2016.

2.2 As per ACP Scheme two financial upgradations were required to be granted on completion of 12 and 24 years of services and both should be equal to the next promotional post. The benefit of First ACP was upgradation under ACP Scheme simply for the reason of not passing the Trade Test, a condition precedent for promotion to the post of Pipe Fitter. As soon as the respondent cleared the Trade Test in the year 2008, he was promoted on the post of Pipe Fitter. After upgrading the pay of respondent from grade pay of Rs.1900/- to grade pay of Rs. 2400/-, a further financial upgradation was granted to the respondent, therefore, as per MACP Scheme three financial upgradations in the shape of promotion or otherwise should be extended to an employee. Thus, the respondent is not entitled for any further financial upgradation at all but such facts have escaped from consideration while passing the order dated 06.04.2016.

3. In reply, the respondent (applicant in OA) submits that review application is maintainable only if there is error apparent on the face of the record. No review application lies in case the error is not on its face. It is a settled position of law that in the review proceedings the case cannot be decided on merits. The right to review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision is erroneous on merits. The petitioners have not even pleaded any error apparent on the face of record. It has also not been pleaded that the impugned order is erroneous. The RA has been filed on the ground of fresh facts and fresh documents which do not find place in the OA. These fresh averments have not been pleaded in the reply of the OA. No reasons have been mentioned as to why these averments made in the RA were not mentioned in the reply to the OA filed by them. The RA cannot be decided on the basis of fresh averments and fresh documents which are not part of the record of the OA. Th