SL. No . Da te Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.1153 of 2018 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Ramesh Wangnoo, Petitioner in person appearing through VC. 2. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the Respondent. 3. Review application (MCC No.5097 of 2025) has been filed along with a delay condonation application (IA No.5098 of 2025) with a delay of 24 days. 4. This Court finds ground for condonation of the delay is sufficient. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, the same is allowed, and the delay in filing review application is hereby condoned. 5. The present review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1153 of 2018, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on merits. 6. The Review Applicant, appearing in person, has essentially reiterated the same submissions which were urged at the time of the final hearing of the writ petition. It has been contended that the findings recorded by this Court on the issue of jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority and on the interpretation of the term “wages” under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 suffer from error and require reconsideration. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has opposed the review application and submitted that no ground falling within the limited scope of review jurisdiction is made out. It was urged that the review is a disguised attempt to seek a rehearing of the writ petition on merits. 8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced and has perused the review application along with the judgment sought to be reviewed. 9. The scope of review is well settled. Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. A judgment may be reviewed only on the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. 10. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self- evident and should not require a long-drawn process of reasoning. A mere disagreement with the reasoning or the conclusions arrived at by the Court does not constitute an error apparent so as to warrant review. 11. In the present case, the Review Applicant has not pointed out any manifest error apparent on the face of the record. No new material or evidence has been brought to the notice of the Court which was unavailable at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, despite due diligence. 12. The grounds urged in the review application seek re- appreciation of the very issues which were conclusively examined and decided by this Court while dismissing the writ petition, including the question of jurisdiction of the Central Government authorities and the nature of Flexi Pay and Grade Pay for the purposes of gratuity computation. 13. Permitting such a review would amount to reopening the entire writ petition and converting the review jurisdiction into an appellate forum, which is impermissible in law. 14. This Court finds that the review application is devoid of merit and does not disclose any ground within the parameters of review jurisdiction warranting interference with the judgment dated 24.07.2025. ORDER The review application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 24.12.2025 Nitesh/