M/o Railways vs RAJESH SEDHU MUDALIAR on 2 November 2026

ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

This review petition is filed by the original respondents against the order of this Tribunal dated 08th November, 2024 in OA Nos. 337/2020, 342/2020 & 344/2020.

2. Facts in brief are that the original applicant (review respondent) was promoted as Goods Guard by the order dated 24th August, 2005. He was not relieved immediately. He was relieved from the post of TNC on 13th April, 2006 to join the promotional post of Goods Guard, which means, he was relieved after 8 months from the date of order of promotion as Goods Guard to join the promotional post of Goods Guard. The review respondents contended that he was not responsible for his late relieving. He was detained due to non-availability of his reliever and acute shortage of TNC in CPTM’s office. The review

Munarshi

3 RA No.6/2026 In OA No. 342/2020

respondent contended that the juniors of the applicants by the name of Shri Krishna R. Banne, Shri Deoram Hari Kokane and Shri Shaikh Javed Noor Mohammad are drawing higher pay than the applicants. He, therefore, sought the stepping up of pay with his juniors at Sr. Nos. 20, 22 and 23 in promotion order dated 24th August, 2005.

3. The review applicants opposed the original application contending that the review respondent did not make any representation for his early relieving. It was contended that in case of late joining for whatsoever reasons, those senior employees who joined late cannot seek stepping up of pay with his juniors.

4. We had heard this OA and allowed the OA holding that the applicant was relieved late not because of his fault but because of administrative exigencies and, therefore, he was held entitled to stepping up of pay at par with his juniors.

5. Review applicants have now filed this Review contending that there are several errors apparent on the

Munarshi

4 RA No.6/2026 In OA No. 342/2020

face of the record and they are below:-

(i) This Tribunal did not accept the stand of the petitioners that Sr. TNC post is categorized: Officer in charge of the department will not be able to relieve the respondent unless a reliever is joined vice the respondent. The respondent ought to have approached the Personnel branch by way of representation or his higher authorities. Thus, the fault lies with the respondent himself.

(ii) Review respondent is not eligible for stepping up of pay as he joined the higher post later than his junior. If a senior joins the promotional post later than the junior for whatsoever reasons, he is not entitled to stepping up of pay.

(iii) The review respondent did not submit any representation for relieving from the post of Sr. TNC. He became aggrieved only when he came to

Munarshi

5 RA No.6/2026 In OA No. 342/2020

know that he was drawing less pay than the junior.

(iv) This Tribunal factually erred in not appreciating the letter dated 12th April, 2006, in which, it is stated that the respondent was detained due to non-availability of his reliever and acute shortage of TNC in CPTM’s office only on 12th April, 2006, which in fact is internal correspondence from their Unit office to COM office and not addressed to DRM, Personnel Branch. The respondent who did not follow the stipulations of promotion order dated 24th August, 2005 cannot compare his case with Shaikh Javed Noor, who has followed the stipulations of the promotion orders. The fault lies with the respondents and, therefore, he was not entitled to stepping up of pay.

6. The cause of action in the instant case is 2005 and, therefore, OA was barred by limitation. He has placed reliance on the case of Surjeet Singh Vs. Union of India

Munarshi

6 RA No.6/2026 In OA No. 342/2020

reported in (1997) 10 SCC 592 and Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 85.

7. Error apparent on the face of the record means the error must be striking per se on the face of the record. While exercising the jurisdiction of review, it is not permissible for the review applicant to re-agitate or re- argue the points which were already considered by the court/tribunal.

8. As indicated earlier, relying on Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal, we had held that if the senior had joined the promotional post late because of the administrative exigencies, he cannot be denied stepping up of pay. Para 12 of our judgment is reproduced for facility of reference:- “12. These observations of the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal at Hyderabad Bench clearly show that if the senior had joined the promotional post late because of the administrative exigencies, he cannot be denied stepping up of pay. In short, if the applicant is not responsible for joining the promotional post late, in that case the applicant is entitled to stepping up of pay at par with his juniors. In the case at hand, the applicants were relieved late because of the administrative exigencies which is evident from the relieving letter itself. The relieving letter is placed at Annexure A-3 of the OA which says that the applicants in OA No.342/2020 and 337/2020 were detained

Munarshi

7 RA No.6/2026 In OA No. 342/2020

due to non availability of their reliever and acute shortage of TNC in CPTM’s Office. This clearly shows that they were not relieved for no fault of theirs. Their late relieving was on account of non-availability of reliever and acute shortage of TNCs. In this view of the matter, facts of the present case in OA Nos.342/2020 and 337/2020 are squarely covered by the judgment in the case of B.Uma Maheswara Rao (supra). The argument of the respondents that the applicants should have got relieved on his own was rejected observing that it is irrational thing to say the least. In this view of the matter, the applicants are entitled to stepping up of pay at par with the juniors at serial Nos.20, 22 and 23 in promotion order dated 24th August, 2005. So far as OA No.344/2020 is concerned, the applicant had made several representations for relieving him to join the promotional post. These letters are at Exhibit A-4 and A-5 dated 30th August, 1999 and 18th October, 1999 and pleadings show that he had made oral request too. However, he was not relieved immediately but he was relieved on 26th June, 2000 whereas the promotion order was passed on 16th August, 1999.”

9. From these observations, it is clear that the relief of stepping up of pay was granted to the respondents, on account of his late relieving, for which he was not responsible. The points enumerated above, which are styled as errors apparent on the face of the record, are nothing but an attempt to re-argue the points which we have already considered. Rather, those points clearly indicate that the review respondent was not relieved due to

Munarshi

8 RA No.6/2026 In OA No. 342/2020

administrative exigencies. In the case of State of West Bengal & Ors Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612, it has been held as under:- “28. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi it was held as under: (SCC p. 716)

"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'."

10. It is further held thus:-

“35. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted judgments are:

(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)

(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

Munarshi

9 RA No.6/2026 In OA No. 342/2020

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise

(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).

(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.

(vi) A decision/order. cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.

(vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.

(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier.”

Munarshi

10 RA No.6/2026 In OA No. 342/2020

11. In these circumstances, we do not find any substance in this Review. Hence, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Santosh Mehra)

(Justice M.G.Sewlikar) Member (A)

Member (J)

A* Deepti Ganesh Munarshi