Key Points: - The Tribunal’s power to review its own order is akin to Civil Court review under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC; grounds are limited to discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. (!) (!) (!) - An error must be self-evident from the record; mere disagreement with law or later decisions cannot justify review; explanation added to Order 47 clarifies that subsequent superior court decisions cannot themselves ground a review. (!) (!) (!) (!) - Review cannot be based on subsequent judgments or memoranda that were not before the Tribunal at the time of the initial decision; reliance on such later developments to grant relief amounts to jurisdictional error. (!) (!) (!) - The onus of demonstrating discrimination or arbitrariness lies with the employee; policy decisions and binding nature of departmental recommendations are not automatic grounds to grant relief absent established facts. (!) (!) (!) - The Tribunal may not extend benefits beyond the scope of the original scheme without proper evidence and lawful grounds; review of a decision cannot substitute for a fresh substantive determination on eligibility. (!) (!) (!)

What is the authority of a Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act to review its own order, and on what grounds can such review be conducted?

What constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" or "new and important matter or evidence" sufficient to justify a review by a Tribunal under the Act?

What are the limitations on using subsequent judgments or memoranda as grounds for reviewing a Tribunal’s earlier order?