The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors, not to substitute judgments, and does not allow re-litigation of issues.

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Review Petition is preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking to review the judgment of this Court dated 12.02.2025 in OP(CAT) No.176/2020.

2. The review petitioners herein are the petitioners in OP(CAT)

No. 176/2020, which was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 12.02.2025. The grievance of the review petitioners is that the findings arrived at in the judgment dated 12.02.2025 are erroneous. The petitioners state that there are certain errors and mistakes apparent on the face of record.

3. Sri. C. Dinesh, the learned counsel for the review petitioners, submits that the Original Petition was filed to set aside Ext.P6 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 26.11.2019 in O.A.No.54/2016, whereby the review petitioners were directed to grant Grade Pay of Rs.4600 to the respondent under the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme (for the sake of brevity ‘the MACP scheme).

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that the respondent originally joined as a Stenographer Grade D in UPSC in 1992 and she received her first Assured Career Progression (ACP) and later she was transferred on her own request to the Defence Accounts Department as Stenographer Grade III in 2005, which was a lower pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 compared to her prior ACP-upgraded pay scale of Rs.

5500-9000. The respondent was erroneously granted Provisional 1st ACP a second time in the Defence Accounts Department in the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 8000 w.e.f. 30.05.2005 with her pay fixed at Rs.5750. Subsequently, the same was cancelled on 20.05.2016, and her pay was refixed at Rs. 5700 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000- 6000 pursuant to directions from Headquarters Office. It is submitted that the transfer of the respondent was voluntary and to a lower post; therefore, the earlier ACP benefits were not applicable. An employee who has already availed ACP benefits in the parent department and thereafter seeks a unilateral transfer to a lower post is entitled solely to the 2nd and 3rd MACP upon completion of 20 years of regular service. The respondent's Grade Pay was correctly fixed at Rs. 2400 consequent to the implementation of the 6th CPC with effect from 01.01.2006. Thereafter, on 15.01.2012, she was granted the 2nd MACP in the grade pay of Rs. 4200, which was formally effectuated vide orders dated 14.10.2015 and 31.05.2016, respectively. The transfer of the respondent occurred during the 5th CPC period, which is governed by different rules and pay structures. Hence, applying post 6th CPC principles to a pre 6th CPC context is an error which this Court failed to note while considering this matter, which is an error apparent on the face of the record.

5. Sri. T.C. Govindaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that there are no errors apparent on the face of the record and the review petition is filed on misconception of facts.

6. Heard.

7. Before we proceed with the discussion, it would be useful to extract Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

“1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the