Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6412-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 17 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Krishna Srivastava Opposite Party :- Central Administrative Tribunal Lko Bench Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Narsingh Narain Lal Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application): 1. Heard Sri Narsingh Narain Lal, the learned counsel for the review petitioner perused the records. 2. The instant review application filed by the petitioner is delayed by 6 days as on 21.01.2025. 3. The review application is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we find that just and plausible reasons have been disclosed by the review petitioner seeking condonation of delay. 4. In absence of any objection and the explanation offered being bona fide, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned. 5. Let the Review Application be assigned a regular number. Order on the memo of review application: 6. By means of the instant review application, the petitioner has sought review of judgment and order dated 13.12.2024, passed by this Court in Writ-A No.12018 of 2024: Ram Krishna Srivastava Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others, whereby this court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the review petitioner. 7. While seeking review of the order dated 13.12.2024, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that this court has erred in appreciating the law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of B.R. Mehta Vs. Union of India: 1999 SCC OnLine Del 354. 8. A bare perusal of the judgment dated 13.12.2024 makes it manifest that this court has considered the case of B.R. Mehta (Supra) in detail in para 10 of the judgment. 9. The learned counsel for the review petitioner next submitted that the judgment of B.R. Mehta (Supra) could have been read in another way, entitling the petitioner to the claims raised by him. 10. A review application can only be entertained if the judgment sought to be reviewed suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record. An error apparent on the face of record is such an error as does not need any long drawn process of reasoning for its establishment. Merely, because another view is possible on any of the points involved in the matter, the view taken by the court cannot be said to be suffering from an error apparent on the face of the record. 11. As the learned counsel for the review petitioner could not make out any such error in the judgment dated 13.12.2024, which is apparent on the face of the record, the review application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench