Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 5126 (MAD)

UNION OF INDIA v. THE REGISTRAR,

REV.APLW/156/2024 · 2026-08-13

P Dhanabal, S M Subramaniam

Transfer Petitionbody2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

REV.APLW No. 156 of 2024 __________ Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL REV.APLW No.156 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.13058 & 27028 of 2025 1. Union of India The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3. 2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3. 3. The Financial Advisor And Chief Accounts Officer, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai-3. … Applicants -vs- 1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104. 2. Mr.M.Mangalaswamy … Respondents Prayer: To review the order passed in W.P.No.28401 of 2012 dated 01.11.2023 in and set aside the same. For Applicants: Mr.V.Chandrasekaran For Respondent(s): R1 - Tribunal Mr.S.Ramaswamy Rajarajan for R2 ***** https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW No. 156 of 2024 __________ Page2 of 5 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present Review Application has been filed to review the order dated 01.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.28401 of 2012. 2. Learned counsel for Review Applicant would contend that eligibility of the 2nd respondent to secure Running Allowance was not considered by this Court in the context of the facts. 3. May that as it be, in any event re-adjudication of merits in a Review Application is impermissible. Scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC cannot be expanded for re-adjudication or re-appreciation of facts. Furthermore, ground for appeal cannot be construed as a ground for reviewing the order of this Court. If at all facts were not considered, parties have to seek for appropriate remedy. 4. In the present case, Review Applicant has not established any error apparent warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. Wrong appreciation of facts would not constitute a ground for review the order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW No. 156 of 2024 __________ Page3 of 5 Consequently, the present Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (P.D.B.,J.) 13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR To: The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai-600 104. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW No. 156 of 2024 __________ Page4 of 5 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND P.DHANABAL,J. AR REV.APLW No.156 of 2024 13-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW No. 156 of 2024 __________ Page5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis