RAM KUMAR JAISWAL vs UNION OF INDIA on 26 October 2026

1. Union of India through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

4. The Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

..…..Respondents By Advocate:

ORDER (UNDER CIRCULATION) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this Review Application (RA, hereafter), the applicant seeks review of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2026 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 232 of 2019 Ram Kumar Jaiswal vs UOI & Ors.

2. The applicant’s contention is that this Tribunal, in the judgment and order dated 15.09.2026 rendered in OA No. 232 of 2019, has not considered the relevant sub-clauses (iv) & (v) of clause 13 and sub- clauses (e) and (f) of clause 16 of the Master Circular No. 66 quoted in the pleadings which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and which is also an error apparent on face of the records.

3. The scope of review has been delineated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. with other connected matters [2023 INSC 963], in following terms: “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co- ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” (emphasis supplied) 4.1 It is noted that reference to the Master Circular No. 66 has been made in paragraph 6.3 of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2026 in the following terms: “6.3 The other objection raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the second penalty could not have been imposed on the applicant without holding an enquiry as it would have the effect of permanently affecting the applicant’s pension adversely. Admittedly, no enquiry was held while imposing the second penalty. However, a perusal of the order dated 26.08.2016 imposing the second penalty reveals that no enquiry was held because the applicant accepted the charges. In view of this position, we find no force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant and the Master Circular No. 66 can be of no aid to the applicant.”

(emphasis supplied) 4.2 The reference to clause 13 of the Master Circular No. 66 can be of no aid to the applicant because clause 13 governs ‘withholding of increment’ whereas the first and the second penalties imposed upon the applicant vide orders dated 14.08.2015 and 26.08.2016, respectively, were of reduction to stages below in the same time scale of pay which are penalties distinct from the penalty of withholding of increment. 4.2 Reference to clause 16 of the Master Circular No. 66 can also be of no aid to the applicant because clause 16 deals with enhancement of penalty by the Appellate/Revising Authority and it has no relevance to the applicant’s case where separate penalties were imposed upon him at different points of time.

5. In conclusion, we are not in agreement with the applicant that the judgment and order dated 15.09.2026 suffers from error apparent on the face of record; rather, we notice that the applicant has attempted to reargue his case in this RA which is not permissible within the scope of review.

6. In view of the foregoing, no case is made out for review of the judgment and order dated 15.09.2026 rendered in OA No. 232 of 2019 and this Review Application is dismissed accordingly.

(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A) Member (J)

Vidya Vidya Ben Waghela Digitally signed by Vidya Ben Waghela Date: 2026.10.26 16:33:17 +05'30'