Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent error or new material; rehearing on merits is impermissible.

Review jurisdiction remains narrow and cannot be used to reargue the merits or obtain a rehearing. In examining a challenge to an earlier denial of pensionary benefits, the Court considered the statutory framework under Section 10(1-B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, Rule 56(e) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, and the effect of the government order dated 5.5.2000. It found no error apparent on the face of the record, no new material, and no patent mistake in the earlier judgment. The cited authorities did not assist the applicant on the facts, so the review application was held not maintainable on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment denying pensionary benefits, and whether the earlier decision required interference in review.

Analysis: The challenge in review was confined to alleged non-consideration of the statutory scheme governing members of the Tribunal and the effect of the government order dated 5.5.2000. The statutory framework under Section 10(1-B) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and Rule 56(e) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules was examined, along with the settled principles governing review. Review jurisdiction was reiterated to be narrow: it is available only for discovery of new material, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient cause, and cannot be used to reargue the case or seek a rehearing on merits. The Court found no patent error in the earlier judgment and held that the cited authorities did not assist the applicant on the facts.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the review application was not maintainable on merits.

---