Tribunal review jurisdiction is limited; later judgments or policy changes cannot reopen a concluded order or justify higher pay scales.

A tribunal's review jurisdiction is confined to the narrow grounds analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, so a later judgment or subsequent governmental memorandum cannot by itself justify reopening a concluded order. A review is not a substitute for appeal and must rest on material existing when the original decision was made; the Tribunal therefore acted beyond jurisdiction in allowing review on that basis. On the pay-scale claim, no legally sustainable case of discrimination or stagnation was shown because the employees had already received promotions and the later addition of posts did not make the earlier denial arbitrary. The contrary orders were set aside and the original rejection restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Administrative Tribunal could review its earlier order on the basis of a subsequent decision and later governmental action. (ii) Whether the respondents had made out a case of discrimination or stagnation warranting grant of higher pay scales.

Issue (i): Whether the Administrative Tribunal could review its earlier order on the basis of a subsequent decision and later governmental action.

Analysis: The power of review conferred on the Tribunal is analogous to the power of a civil court and is confined to the grounds recognised in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A subsequent decision of a coordinate or superior court does not by itself constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. A review cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, and the Tribunal must confine itself to the material that existed when the original order was made. Subsequent events or later policy changes cannot be the basis for reopening a concluded decision unless they disclose a patent error within the settled limits of review jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The review could not be sustained on the basis of the later decision or the later memorandum, and the Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction in allowing it.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondents had made out a case of discrimination or stagnation warranting grant of higher pay scales.

Analysis: The claim for higher scales was originally rejected because the respondents had already received promotions and had reached the highest posts in the service, while the scheme was framed to address lack of promotional avenues. In review, the plea of stagnation was not supported by material and was inconsistent with the admitted service progression showing multiple promotions. The later memorandum sanctioning additional posts from a future date did not establish that the earlier denial was arbitrary or discriminatory, nor did it justify rewriting the original decision. The High Court also erred in assuming hostile discrimination without a factual foundation sufficient to overturn the original adjudication.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to the relief claimed, and no legally sustainable case of discrimination was established.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing review and directing grant of higher pay scales was unsustainable, and the original rejection of the respondents' claim was restored by setting aside the contrary orders.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal exercising review jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 cannot reopen a concluded decision on the basis of a later judgment or subsequent event, and review is permissible only within the narrow grounds analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---