Damodar Valley Corporation vs West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited & Ors on 2 July 2026

1. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Bhawan, Block ‘DJ’ Sector 11, Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700091 Email: cereg@wbsedcl.in

2. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi (Now Jharkhand Bijlee Vitaran Nigam Ltd) Through its Resident Engineer Energy Building, HEC Dhurwa, Ranchi- 834004 Email: jbvnl@jbvnl.co.in

3. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary 6th, 7th & 8th  Floors, Tower B,

World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029 Email: secy@cercind.gov.in

4. Damodar Valley Power Consumers Association (DVPCA)

Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. Rajesh K Shah A-69, Lower Ground Floor, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi, 110 013 Email: dvcconsumers@yahoo.com

…Respondents

Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s)

: Shri Venkatesh Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava Surbhi Kapoor Manu Tiwari Akash Lamba Aniket Kanhaua Indu Uttara Tanishka Khatana Suhael Buttan Adarsh Singh Abhishek Nangia Aashwyn Singh Ananya Dutta Priya Dhankar Nikunj Bhatnagar Kunal Veer Chopra Vedant Choudhary Manav Bhatia Drishti Rathi Devishi Gupta Divyansh Kasana Punyam Bhutani Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma Nihal Bhardwaj Siddharth Nigotia Mohit Mansharamani Harsh Vardhan Kanika Chug Vineet Kumar

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Rajiv Yadav for Res. 4

RP No. 33 OF 2025 & IA No. 213 of 2026 IN APL No. 135 OF 2017

Damodar Valley Corporation Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical Having its office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054 Email: pravin.singh@dvc.gov.in

…Review Petitioner

Versus

1. Delhi Transco Limited

Through its General Manager (Commercial) 2nd Floor, 33 KV Grid Sub-Station, I.P. Estate, near Vikas Bhawan New Delhi – 110002 Email: gmcra.dtl@gmail.com

2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Through its CEO BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 Email: megha.bajpeyi@relianceada.com

3. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Through its CEO Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092 Email: prem.kumar@relianceada.com

4. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

(Erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd.)

Through its CEO Grid Substation Building, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi – 110009 Email: anurag.bansal@tatapower-ddl.com; Sanjay.banga@tatapower-ddl.com

5. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chief Engineer Inter-state Billing, Shed No. TI-A, Patiala – 147001

Email: director-commercial@pspcl.in; cmd-pspcl@pspcl.in

6. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.

Through its Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, MPSEB Colony, Rampur, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482008 Email: anurag.naik@mppmcl.com

7. Tata Steel Limited

Through its General Manager (Commercial) PGP Works, General Office (W-175), Jamshedpur – 831001, Jharkhand Email: vsingh@tatasteel.com

8. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary 6th, 7th & 8th  Floors, Tower B, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029 Email: info@cercind.gov.in

…Respondents

Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s)

: Shri Venkatesh Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma Kanika Chugh Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava Suhael Buttan Priya Dhankar Nihal Bhardwaj Abhishek Nangia Vineet Kumar Surbhi Kapoor Tanishka Khatana Punyam Bhutani Nikunj Bhatnagar Kunal Veer Chopra Vedant Choudhary Manav Bhatia Drishti Rathi Adarsh Singh Siddharth Nigotia Manu Tiwari Mohit Mansharamani Akash Lamba Aashwyn Singh

Harsh Vardhan Aniket Kanhaua Indu Uttara Ananya Dutta Devishi Gupta

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shahbaaz Husain

Mayank Singh

V.M. Kannan

Harimohana. N

for Res. 1

Ravin Dubey

For Res. 6

RP No. 51 OF 2025 & IA No. 209 of 2026 IN APL No. 183 OF 2017

Damodar Valley Corporation Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical Having its office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054 Email: pravin.singh@dvc.gov.in

…Review Petitioner

Versus

1. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Through its CEO BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 Email: megha.bajpeyi@relianceada.com

2. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Through its CEO Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092 Email: prem.kumar@relianceada.com

3. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

(Erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd.)

Through its CEO Grid Substation Building, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi – 110009 Email: anurag.bansal@tatapower-ddl.com;

Sanjay.banga@tatapower-ddl.com

4. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chief Engineer Inter-state Billing, Shed No. TI-A, Patiala – 147001 Email: director-commercial@pspcl.in; cmd-pspcl@pspcl.in

5. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.

Through its Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, MPSEB Colony, Rampur, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482008 Email: anurag.naik@mppmcl.com

6. Tata Steel Limited

Through its General Manager (Commercial) PGP Works, General Office (W-175), Jamshedpur – 831001, Jharkhand Email: vsingh@tatasteel.com

7. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary 6th, 7th & 8th  Floors, Tower B, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029 Email: info@cercind.gov.in

…Respondents

Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s)

: Shri Venkatesh Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma Priya Dhankar Surbhi Kapoor Kunal Veer Chopra Adarsh Singh Akash Lamba Indu Uttara Kanika Chugh Nihal Bhardwaj Tanishka Khatana Vedant Choudhary Siddharth Nigotia Aashwyn Singh Ananya Dutta

Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava Abhishek Nangia Punyam Bhutani Manav Bhatia Manu Tiwari Harsh Vardhan Suhael Buttan Vineet Kumar Nikunj Bhatnagar Drishti Rathi Mohit Mansharamani Aniket Kanhaua Devishi Gupta

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) :

Aditya Vikram Jalan Urvashi Mishra Kshitij Pandey Bhanu Jindal for Res. 1

Aditya Vikram Jalan Urvashi Mishra Kshitij Pandey Bhanu Jindal for Res. 2

Ravin Dubey for Res. 5

RP No. 52 OF 2025 IN APL No. 4 OF 2017

Damodar Valley Corporation Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical Having its office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054 Email: pravin.singh@dvc.gov.in

…Review Petitioner

Versus

1. Delhi Transco Limited

Through its General Manager (Commercial) Shakti Sadan, Kotla Road, New Delhi – 110002 Email: gmcra.dtl@gmail.com

2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Through its CEO BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place,

New Delhi – 110019 Email: megha.bajpeyi@relianceada.com

3. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Through its CEO Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092 Email: prem.kumar@relianceada.com

4. North Delhi Power Ltd.

(Now Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.)

Through its CEO 33 kV Sub-Station Building, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi – 110009 Email: anurag.bansal@tatapower-ddl.com; Sanjay.banga@tatapower-ddl.com

5. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Through its Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula - 134109 Email: md@hpgcl.org.in

6. Kerala State Electricity Board

Through its Chief Engineer 8th Floor, Vydyuthi Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695004 Email: trac@kseb.in

7. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company

Through its Managing Director K.R. Circle, Bangalore – 506001 Email: md@bescom.co.in, gmpp.work@gmail.com

8. Hubli Electricity Supply Company Through its Executive Engineer (Ele) (Regulatory Affairs) Navanagar, P.B. Road, Navanagar, Hubli – 580025 Email: eera.hescom@gmail.com

9. Gulbarga Electricity Supply Corporation

Through its Asst. Executive Engineer (Regulatory Affairs) Station Road, Gulbarga, Karnataka – 585102 Email: aeeragescom@gmail.com

10. Mangalore Electricity Supply Company

Through its Superintending Engineer (Coml.) Paradigm Plaza, AB Shetty Circle, Mangalore – 575001 Email: seecoml@rediffmail.com, secomlco@mesco.in

11. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Through its General Manager (Commercial) 927, LJ Avenue, GF, New Delhi Kantharaj Urs Road, Saraswatipuram, Mysore – 570009 Email: gmcomm@cescmysore.org, seccesc@gmail.com

12. Tata Steel Ltd.

Through its General Manager (Commercial) PGP Works, General Office (W-175), Jamshedpur – 831001, Jharkhand Email: vsingh@tatasteel.com

13. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary 6th, 7th & 8th  Floors, Tower B, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029 Email: info@cercind.gov.in

…Respondents

Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s)

: Shri Venkatesh Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma Suhael Buttan Abhishek Nangia Tanishka Khatana Kunal Veer Chopra Drishti Rathi Manu Tiwari Kanika Chugh Priya Dhankar Vineet Kumar

Punyam Bhutani Vedant Choudhary Adarsh Singh Mohit Mansharamani Aashwyn Singh Aniket Kanhaua Ananya Dutta Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava Nihal Bhardwaj Surbhi Kapoor Nikunj Bhatnagar Manav Bhatia Siddharth Nigotia Akash Lamba Harsh Vardhan Indu Uttara Devishi Gupta

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shahbaaz Husain

Mayank Singh

V.M. Kannan

Harimohana. N

for Res. 1

RP No. 34 OF 2025 IN APL No. 298 OF 2016 RP No. 40 OF 2025 IN APL No. 312 OF 2016

Damodar Valley Corporation Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical Having its office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054 Email: pravin.singh@dvc.gov.in

…Review Petitioner

Versus

1. Delhi Transco Limited

Through its General Manager (Commercial) 2nd Floor, 33 KV Grid Sub-Station, I.P. Estate, near Vikas Bhawan New Delhi – 110002 Email: gmcra.dtl@gmail.com

2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Through its CEO BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019

Email: megha.bajpeyi@relianceada.com

3. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Through its CEO Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092 Email: prem.kumar@relianceada.com

4. North Delhi Power Ltd.

Through its CEO 33 kV Sub-Station Building, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi – 110009 Email: anurag.bansal@tatapower-ddl.com; sanjay.banga@tatapower-ddl.com

5. Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. Through its Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula - 134109 Email: md@hpgcl.org.in

6. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary 6th, 7th & 8th  Floors, Tower B, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029 Email: info@cercind.gov.in

…Respondents

Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s)

: Shri Venkatesh Aashwyn Singh Harsh Vardhan Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma Kanika Chugh Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava Suhael Buttan Priya Dhankar Nihal Bhardwaj Abhishek Nangia Vineet Kumar Surbhi Kapoor Tanishka Khatana Punyam Bhutani Nikunj Bhatnagar

Kunal Veer Chopra Vedant Choudhary Manav Bhatia Drishti Rathi Adarsh Singh Siddharth Nigotia Manu Tiwari Mohit Mansharamani Akash Lamba Aniket Kanhaua Indu Uttara Ananya Dutta Devishi Gupta

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shahbaaz Husain

Mayank Singh

V.M. Kannan

Harimohana. N

for Res. 1

RP No. 54 OF 2025 & IA No. 210 of 2026 IN APL No. 136 OF 2017

Damodar Valley Corporation Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical Having its office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054 Email: pravin.singh@dvc.gov.in

…Review Petitioner

Versus

1. Delhi Transco Limited

Through its General Manager (Commercial) 2nd Floor, 33 KV Grid Sub-Station, I.P. Estate, near Vikas Bhawan New Delhi – 110002 Email: gmcra.dtl@gmail.com

2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Through its CEO BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 Email: megha.bajpeyi@relianceada.com

3. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Through its CEO

2nd Floor, A-Block, Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092 Email: prem.kumar@relianceada.com

4. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

(Erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd.)

Through its CEO Grid Substation Building, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi – 110009 Email: anurag.bansal@tatapower-ddl.com; Sanjay.banga@tatapower-ddl.com

5. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.

Through its Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, MPSEB Colony, Rampur, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482008 Email: md@mppmcl.com

6. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary 6th, 7th & 8th  Floors, Tower B, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029 Email: info@cercind.gov.in

…Respondents

Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s)

: Shri Venkatesh Kanika Chugh Suhael Buttan Nihal Bhardwaj Vineet Kumar Tanishka Khatana Nikunj Bhatnagar Vedant Choudhary Drishti Rathi Siddharth Nigotia Mohit Mansharamani Aashwyn Singh Aniket Kanhaua Ananya Dutta Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava Priya Dhankar Abhishek Nangia

Surbhi Kapoor Punyam Bhutani Kunal Veer Chopra Manav Bhatia Adarsh Singh Manu Tiwari Akash Lamba Harsh Vardhan Indu Uttara Devishi Gupta

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Shahbaaz Husain

Mayank Singh

V.M. Kannan

Harimohana. N

for Res. 1

Mansoor Ali Shoket

Nitin Kala

Kunal Singh

Tanmay Jain

For Res. 4

Ravin Dubey

For Res. 5

RP No. 55 OF 2025 & IA No. 183 of 2026 & IA No. 214 OF 2026 IN APL No. 181 OF 2017

Damodar Valley Corporation Through its Dy. General Manager Electrical Having its office at DVC Towers, VIP Road, Kolkata-700054 Email: pravin.singh@dvc.gov.in

…Review Petitioner

Versus

1. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Through its CEO BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019 Email: megha.bajpeyi@relianceada.com

2. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Through its CEO Shakti Kiran Building, Karkardooma, Delhi – 110092

Email: prem.kumar@relianceada.com

3. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

(Erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd.)

Through its CEO Grid Substation Building, Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi – 110009 Email: anurag.bansal@tatapower-ddl.com; Sanjay.banga@tatapower-ddl.com

4. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Bhawan, Block ‘DJ’ Sector 11, Salt Lake City, Kolkata- 700091 Email: cereg@wbsedcl.in

5. Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi (Now Jharkhand Bijlee Vitaran Nigam Ltd)

Through its Managing Director Energy Building, HEC Dhurwa, Ranchi – 834004 Email: jbvnl@jbvnl.co.in

6. M.P. Power Management Company Ltd.

Through its Managing Director Shakti Bhawan, MPSEB Colony, Rampur, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh – 482008 Email: anurag.naik@mppmcl.com

7. Damodar Valley Power Consumers Association (DVPCA)

Through its Authorised Signatory Mr. Rajesh K Shah Regd. Office: Ideal Centre, 4th Floor, 9 AJC Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017 Email: dvcconsumers@yahoo.com

8. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary 6th, 7th & 8th  Floors, Tower B, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi – 110029 Email: info@cercind.gov.in

…Respondents

Counsel on record for the Petitioner(s)

: Shri Venkatesh Shryeshth Ramesh Sharma Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava Priya Dhankar Abhishek Nangia Surbhi Kapoor Punyam Bhutani Kunal Veer Chopra Manav Bhatia Adarsh Singh Manu Tiwari Akash Lamba Harsh Vardhan Indu Uttara Devishi Gupta Kanika Chugh Suhael Buttan Nihal Bhardwaj Vineet Kumar Tanishka Khatana Nikunj Bhatnagar Vedant Choudhary Drishti Rathi Siddharth Nigotia Mohit Mansharamani Aashwyn Singh Aniket Kanhaua Ananya Dutta

Counsel on record for the Respondent(s) : Aditya Vikram Jalan Urvashi Mishra Kshitij Pandey Bhanu Jindal for Res. 1

Aditya Vikram Jalan Urvashi Mishra Kshitij Pandey Bhanu Jindal

for Res. 2

Mansoor Ali Shoket

Nitin Kala

Kunal Singh

Tanmay Jain

For Res. 3

Ravin Dubey for Res. 6

Rajiv Yadav For Res. 7

O R D E R

PER HON’BLE MR. VIRENDER BHAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. By way of these review petitions, the petitioner Damodar Valley Corporation (in short DVC) has sought review of common judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed by this Tribunal in appeal no.268/2016 and batch which had arisen from various Tariff Orders passed by the 3rd respondent Central Electricity Regulatory Commission in the years 2016-2017. Since all the review petitions are directed against the said common judgment dated 11.09.2025 and raise identical grounds for review, these are being taken up for disposal vide this common order.

2. The review petitions are directed against the finding on issue (a) in the said judgment dated 11.09.2025 which is extracted hereinbelow: - Issue - a): Whether the Central Commission is correct in holding that the O&M expenses adequately cover the contribution to the Pension and Gratuity Fund as factored into the normative O&M expenses.

3. This Tribunal has affirmed the findings of the Central Commission on this issue and rejected the claim of the petitioner that Pension and Gratuity Fund (in short P&G Fund) liability is a distinct tariff element, not subsuming within the normative O&M expenses and recoverable separately from the consumers in tariff.

4. According to the petitioners, the findings of this Tribunal on the said issue are ex facie erroneous and proceed on a fundamental misappreciation of both the statutory framework governing DVC as well as the applicable tariff regulations.

5. We have heard Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for review petitioners at length. We have also heard Mr. Rajiv Yadav, learned counsel on behalf of Damodar Valley Power Consumers Association (in short DVPCA), Mr. Buddy Ranganadhan, learned senior counsel on behalf of BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, and Mr. Ravin Dubey, learned counsel for Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Ltd, who have been arrayed as respondents in the review petitions. We have also perused the written submissions filed by the learned counsels.

6. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioners, this Tribunal, in the judgment dated 11.09.2025 has: -

(i) erred in equating pension liability of DVC with Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) despite established legal distinction;

(ii) erred in treating P&G Fund contribution as part of the normative O&M expenses; and

(iii) returned findings on this issue contrary to the previous judgment of this Tribunal dated 23.11.2007 in appeal no.271/2006 and batch as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd and Ors. v. DVC and Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 281.

7. It is submitted that there is a fundamental distinction between pension liabilities and Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) in as much as under CPF both employer and employee contribute a specified amount and the employer’s liability ceases upon retirement with the employee receiving an accumulated sum, whereas pension scheme imposes a continued liability on the employer post-retirement of employee extending even after the employee’s demise in the form of family pension to his legal representatives. It is submitted that the pension liability of the petitioner substantially pertains to the employees who were recruited prior to 01.01.2004 and accordingly DVC carries a legacy pension obligations in respect of such employees which is not comparable to the framework applicable to such other entities. It is further submitted that employee related expenses contemplated within

normative Operation and Maintenance expenditure (O&M) are limited to meeting current and contribution based liabilities such as Gratuity, CPF and NPS which are discharged through periodic outflows in contrast to the pension liability which is specifically serviced through dedicated P&G Fund, and therefore, in view of this fundamental distinction, P&G liability cannot be equated with or subsumed within the contribution based framework like CPF/NPS.

8. It is further argued that Section 40 of DVC Act, 1948 expressly mandates DVC to make provision for funds on terms as may be specified by Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) in consultation with the Central Government and accordingly, P&G Fund was established in terms of the direction of C&AG which cannot be equated with incidental annual outgoings such as CPF, Gratuity or medical allowances. In this regard, reference is made to order dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Commission in petition no.66/2005 to argue that creation of P&G Fund on the basis of actuarial value was formally approved by the Commission in the said order.

9. It is further argued that in the said order dated 03.10.2006, while approving the proposal for creation of the P&G fund, the Commission did not permit the interim liability to be passed on to the consumers and instead, directed that liability be shared between the DVC and consumers in the ratio

of 40:60 with only 60% of the liability being recoverable from the consumers in three equal annual installments commencing from FY 2006-2007. It is pointed out that in the appeal, challenging the said partial allowance of P&G liability, preferred by DVC this Tribunal, vide judgment dated 23.11.2007, held that the direction to apportion the liability in the ratio of 40:60 between DVC and the consumers was not supported by any justification. Accordingly, this Tribunal held that the claim of DVC for recovery of entire cost of creation of P&G Fund through tariff was justified and remanded the matter back to the Commission for de-novo consideration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd and Ors. v. DVC and Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 281 affirmed the judgment dated 23.11.2007 of this Tribunal. It is argued that while determining tariff for subsequent control periods i.e. FYs 2009- 2014 and FY 2014-2019, the Commission was required to continue giving effect to the aforesaid framework by allowing P&G Fund as a separate tariff element with a corresponding adjustment in normative O&M. But this Tribunal has proceeded on an erroneous premise in holding that DVC is, in effect, challenging the validity of the Tariff Regulations, which is not the case at all.

10. It is further argued that the findings of this Tribunal in Paragraph no.186 of the judgment under review to the effect that P&G fund of DVC is comparable to similar funds maintained by other public sector utilities such

as NTPC and that contributions to such funds based on actuarial valuation are not allowed to NTPC as an additional tariff element over and above normative O&M, is based on factually and legal incorrect premise for the reason that no other public sector utility including NTPC is governed by a pari materia statutory mandate (like Section 40 read with Section 48 of the DVC Act) requiring the creation of a dedicated actuarially funded corpus for funding pension liabilities.

11. The submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have been strongly refuted by the learned senior counsel/counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is argued that the review petitions do not disclose any error on the face of record to justify review of the judgment dated 11.09.2025 of this Tribunal. They urged us to dismiss the review petitions.

Our Analysis:

12. At the outset, we may note that Section 114 of CPC is the substantive provision dealing with scope of review and is quoted below:

“114. Review. —Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is

allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

13. The grounds on which review of a judgment / order can be sought, have been specified in Order XLVII of the CPC which are reproduced hereinbelow: - “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 record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can

present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.

Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.” (Emphasis supplied)

14. A bare reading of these relevant legal provisions would make it clear that an application for review of a judgment / order is maintainable upon (i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the review applicant or could not be produced by him when the judgment / order was passed; or (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.

15. The expression “error apparent on the face of record” used in Order XLVII Rule 1 indicates an error which is self-evident and staring in the eye. Any error or mistake which is not self-evident and has to be deducted from

a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power of review. Power of review can be exercised only where a glaring omission or a patent mistake is found in the order under review. We may also note that the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent mistake but not to substitute a view for the reason that a review petition cannot be permitted to be an appeal in disguise.

16. In Chhajju Ram v. Neki Ram AIR 1922 PC 112, it was held that the words “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC must mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. This interpretation was approved by the Supreme Court in later judgment in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasium 1955 1 SCR 520. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 320, Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly summarized the principles for exercising review jurisdiction as under: - “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the stature: 20.1 When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or

evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

17. We also find advantageous to quote here following Paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1034:- “31. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of

evidence has emerged after passing of thejudgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule” (Refer: Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius).”

18. In a recent judgment dated 08.09.2025 passed in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Anr. SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1080) Hon'ble Supreme Court has again reiterated that court’s power to review its own previous order is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and not to rehear or substitute a different view as if it were an appeal. It has been held in the said judgment that the power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of the judicial decisions:

“15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.

15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be

reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.

15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power.

15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.”

19. Further, after noticing the distinction between power of review and appellate power, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly summed up the grounds of review as under: -

“17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.

17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.

17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.”

20. We may also note that in the words of Justice Krishna Iyer (as his Lordship then was), “a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is

manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flows and reversal of result. A review in the counsel’s mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.” (See Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2021) 9 SCC 657).

21. Bearing in mind these salutary legal principles governing the power of a court to review its own decision, let’s now turn to the judgment under review and the grounds of review raised in these petitions.

22. To state pithily, the issue before this Tribunal was whether the normative O&M covers the P&G liability of the employees of DVC.

23. The discussion on this issue spans over 12 pages of the judgment from Paragraph no.156 to Paragraph no.186. We do not find it necessary to burden this order by reproducing the entire discussion herein. However, perusal of the said portion of the judgment would definitely reveal that all the arguments of the petitioners that have been raised in these review petitions have been taken note of and discussed in these Paragraphs of the judgment under review.

24. After extracting Paragraph no.20.3 of the Statement of reasons (SOR) of 2009 Tariff Regulations applicable for the control period 2009-2014, this Tribunal has held in Paragraph no.162 of the judgment under review that the O&M charges include every expenditure incurred on the employees including Gratuity, CPF, medical, education allowance etc. This Tribunal was conscious about the distinction between pension liabilities and CPF and the same has been discussed in Paragraph no.166 of the judgment. Taking note of the arguments on behalf of the petitioners with regards to applicability of previous judgment dated 23.11.2007 in appeal no.271/2006 and batch, it was held in Paragraph no.168 that the period 2006-2009, to which the said judgment pertains, is the past period when no such provision as contained in Paragraph no.20.3 of SOR of 2009 Tariff Regulations, had been made and therefore, additional allowance was granted to DVC in that judgment. Further we have, in Paragraph no.169 taken note of the submission of DVC itself that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Shrachi judgment (supra) held that the Central Commission, while framing regulations under the plenary the Electricity Act, 2003, must take care of such provisions of the DVC Act not inconsistent with the Act and accordingly directed to frame regulations to accommodate Section 40 of the DVC Act. Ultimately, this Tribunal came to conclusion that grant of P&G Fund expenditure in addition to O&M expenses, which already include Gratuity, CPF, medical and

education allowances etc., will result in double payment as the employees are entitled to either P&G or Gratuity and CPF.

25. Taking note of Regulation 3(28) of 2009 Tariff Regulations, this Tribunal has held in Paragraph no.178 of the judgment that “O&M expenses” are meant to cover all expenditure that are incurred on the Operation and Maintenance of the generating station and therefore, all such expenditure relating to the manpower of a generating company has to be met from O&M expenses that are allowable at normative level prescribed under these regulations.

26. In Paragraph no.179, this Tribunal has held that a harmonious reading of the statement of reasons as well as Tariff Regulations, 2009 along with the impugned Tariff Order supports the view taken by the Commission that contribution made by DVC to P&G Fund is indisputably a manpower related expenditure which is already allowed to DVC as normative O&M expenses in terms of these regulations. It has further been held that such a normative tariff regime would be defeated if a generating company is allowed any O&M related expenditure by way of additional allowance over and above O&M norms that are allowed to it in accordance with the tariff regulations.

27. It has been stated that the purpose of norms based tariff scheme is to incentivize efficiency so that a generating company incurs expenditure prudently within the prescribed norms.

28. With reference to the reliance placed on behalf of the petitioners on Regulation 53 read with Section 40 of the DVC Act, it has been observed in Paragraph no.185 of the judgment that the DVC neither argued nor established before the Central Commission that P&G Fund had been created pursuant to the direction/approval of C&AG under Section 40 of the DVC Act. Even no document in this regard was submitted on behalf of the petitioners during the course of hearing of these review petitions. It has further been stated in the said Paragraph that Regulation 53(2)(iv) does not lay down that an expenditure which is adequately provided for under the O&M norms, has to be once again allowed as a tariff element.

29. In nutshell, we may note that upon consideration of all the relevant statutory provisions as well as regulations, this Tribunal has, in the judgment under review, come to a particular finding on the issue under consideration which cannot be altered in the review proceedings. A well-reasoned and well considered judgment, even though erroneous, does not fall within the scope and ambit of review. There is a clear distinction between a judgment suffering from error apparent on the face of record and an erroneous

judgment. Review petition is maintainable only in the former case whereas in the latter case, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to assail the order/judgment by way of appeal in the higher forum/court.

30. By way of the instant review petitions, the petitioners are actually seeking a relook of the judgment under review in the hope to discover any flaw or fault in the same, which is not permissible in law. The review petitions manifestly appear to be appeals in disguise and thus, do not fall within the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

31. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review dated 11.09.2025 and have failed to bring the case within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions referred to hereinabove. The review petitions are sans any merit and are accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 02nd day of July, 2026.

(Ajay Talegaonkar) Technical Member (Electricity)

(Virender Bhat) Judicial Member

√

REPORTABLE / NON-REPORTABLE

tp