- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
NEERAJ PANDEY v. ORDNANCE FACTORY
CAT, Lucknow Bench RA No. 2 of 2026 in O.A. No. 332/00258/2023 Neeraj Pandey & Anr Vs. UOI & Ors.
Page 1 of 3
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 2 of 2026 in
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00258 of 2023 Dated, this 13th day of February, 2026 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
1. Neeraj Pandey, aged about 39 years, S/o of Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Resident of - H. No. 150, Ward No. 12, Near Nidhi Medical Store, Sugahi Teacher Colony, Salempur, Deoria.
2. Dilip Kumar, aged about 39 years, S/o Shri Biswanath Prasad, Resident of Jag Devi Path, Murli Chakra, B.V. College, Patna, Bihar.
….. Applicants By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Directorate of Ordnance (Coordinate and Service), 10 A, Shaheed Khudi, Ram Bose Road, Kolkata.
3. The Chairman and Managing Director, Advance Weapons and Equipment India Ltd., Ordnance Factory, Kanpur - Kalpi Road, Kanpur.
4. The Executive Director, Ordnance Factory Project, Korwa, Amethi.
5. The DDG, Directorate of Ordnance (Coordinate and Service), Directorate Field Unit - OFC, Kanpur.
6. Shri Prakash Singh Yadav, Fitter General/00027.
7. Shri Sanish Kumar, Fitter General/00061.
8. Shri Vinod Kumar, Fitter General/00039.
9. Shri Sravan Kumar, Fitter General/00047.
10. Shri Ajai Kumar, Fitter General/00053. (Respondents No. 6 to 10 are posted under Respondent No. 4 i.e. Executive Director, Ordnance Factory Project, Korwa, Amethi).
…...Respondents By Advocate:
1
ORDER (UNDER CIRCULATION)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this Review Application, the applicants have sought review of judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 258 of 2023 Jhulan Ray & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors on the ground that in dismissing the OA No. 258 of 2023 vide the judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 this Tribunal has not properly discussed the fact that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V Vincent Velankanni has been passed giving protection of the judgments rendered in the matter of B S Bajwa and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and, further, the aforementioned judgments have not been distinguished on the aspect of unsettling the settled seniority.
2. 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.
2
(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)
3. The issue raised by the applicants is arguable and it has been touched upon in paragraph 9.3 of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2025. We have not discussed B S Bajwa and Shiba Shankar Mohapatra therein keeping in view the categorical finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V Vincent Velankanni that the Circular dated 04.08.2015 cannot be applied retrospectively.
4. It is conceivable to hold another opinion in regard to the averments made by the applicants in this Review Applicant for which the appropriate legally permissible recourse would be to prefer an appeal.
5. In view of the foregoing, no case is made out for review of the judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 passed in O.A. No. 258 of 2023 and this Review Application is dismissed accordingly.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
3
Alert