Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44996-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 71 of 2025 Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Arya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. through. Secretary Department of Energy Lucknow and 4 others Counsel for Applicant :- Pratyush Mishra,Sanjay Misra Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Pratyush Mishra, learned counsel for the review- petitioner who seeks a review of the judgment and order dated 25.04.2025 passed in Special Appeal No. 400 of 2023. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the review-petitioner is that this Court failed to consider the entitlement of the review- petitioner for Financial Up-gradation Scheme from the date of entitlement i.e. 28.03.2009, which as per the review-petitioner has been wrongfully given to him in the same grade-pay. 3. It is also submitted that the Court failed to consider the Office Memorandum dated 16.12.2011 which clearly provided for entitlement of the 3rd ACP under Clause 13(B) of the said Office Memorandum. 4. It has also been urged that the Court failed to take note of the information provided by the Deputy Chief Account Officer (Pay & Accounts) UPRVUNL dated 20.03.2013 and it is submitted that had this aspect of the matter been considered by the Court, the result of the intra-court appeal would have been different. 5. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and finds that the entire endevour of the review-petitioner is to seek a re- hearing on merits which is apparently not the scope of a review- petition. 6. The Apex Court in Ram Sahu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 89 has noticed the scope of review and the relevant para 35 of the said report reads as under:- "35. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted judgments are: (i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3) (f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1CPC. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. (iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier." " 7. Applying the aforesaid principles to the instant case in context with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the review-petitioner, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of record. All submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the review-petitioner have been taken note of including the circular dated 16.12.2011 by this Court in its judgment dated 25.04.2025 and it cannot be said that the Court missed out on any relevant submission advanced by the review-petitioner. 8. The Court has clearly held that at the time of grant of third financial upgradation, the review-petitioner was in the pay-band of Rs.15600-39100 and in the said pay band, there were just two grade-pay options of Rs. 5400/- and 6600- and the appellant has been awarded the higher grade-pay and if the grade-pay of Rs. 8700/- as claimed by the review-petitioner is granted then it would amount to change in the pay-band which is not permissible. The same submissions are sought to be advanced again in review which for the aforesaid reasons is not permissible. 9. Accordingly, the review-petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Asheesh/- (Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench