MANOJ KUMAR BARANWAL vs DEFENCE

1 M.A No. 4121/2026 in RA Diary No. 9029/2026 in OA 2688/2022
Item 35 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

M.A. No. 4121/2026 in RA Diary No. 9029/2026
in OA 2688/2022

Reserved on : 14.09.2026

Pronounced on : 23.10.2026

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)

Manoj Kumar Baranwal (Aged about 54 years)
Group ‘A’
S/o Sh. Nakul Prasad Baranwal
nd
R/o A-82, 2 Floor, Dayal Bagh Colony,
Near Sai Baba Mandir,
Surajkund, Faridabad-121009 ….Applicant

(By Advocate : Mr. Tarun Kumar Agarwal)

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
101-A, South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Joint Secretary &
Chief Administrative Officer (JS&CAO),
st
1 Floor, A-Block, Defence Offices Complex,
Africa Avenue, New Delhi-110023.

3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts
(Pension),
Draupadighat Prayagraj
(Allahabad)-211014 .…Respondents

(By Advocate : Mr. Gyanendra Singh with Mr. S. K. Tripathi)

2026.10.23 11:42:13
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

2 M.A No. 4121/2026 in RA Diary No. 9029/2026 in OA 2688/2022
Item 35 (C-3)
ORDER

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

M.A. No. 4121/2026 :-
The instant M.A. has been filed seeking condonation of delay of five days
in filing the Review Application against the judgment dated 30.06.2026
passed in O.A. No. 2688/2022. For the reasons stated in the application,
which constitute sufficient cause for the short delay involved, the delay of
five days is condoned. M.A. No. 4121/2026 is accordingly allowed.
RA Diary No. 9029/2026 :-
The Review Application has been filed on the ground that the order dated
30.06.2026 contains an error apparent on the face of the record arising from
an alleged inadvertent interchange of reasoning and conclusions in O.A. No.
2688/2022 and O.A. No. 599/2023. Both matters were filed by the same
applicant and were heard together. However, as recorded in the original
order, the reliefs claimed in the two OAs were different and separate orders
were passed. The prayer made in the RA reads as under :-
“a. Review the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A.
No.2688/2022;
b. Hold that the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A.
No.2688/2022, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the
record inasmuch as the operative conclusion allowing the Original
Application is inconsistent with the findings recorded by this
Hon'ble Tribunal and is the result of an inadvertent interchange of
the operative conclusions and consequential directions in O.A.
No.2688/2022 and O.A. No.599/2023;
c. Correct the said error by modifying the operative portion
pertaining to O.A. No.2688/2022 and consequently dismiss O.A.
No.2688/2022 in terms of the findings, reasoning and conclusion
already recorded by this Hon'ble Tribunal;

2026.10.23 11:42:13
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

3 M.A No. 4121/2026 in RA Diary No. 9029/2026 in OA 2688/2022
Item 35 (C-3)
d. Pass such consequential and ancillary directions as may be
necessary to ensure that the judgments rendered in
O.A.No.2688/2022 and O.A. No.599/2023 correctly reflect the
findings intended by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
e. Pass such further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. O.A. No. 2688/2022 concerned the applicant’s claim for grant of
annual increments notionally for the years 2018 and 2019 and consequential
pay fixation. O.A. No. 599/2023 concerned the treatment of the period
between the applicant’s dismissal and reinstatement as dies-non and the
consequential denial of pay and allowances. The Review Applicant submitted
that paragraph 7 of the order in the present OA discusses the dies-non issue
and the principle of double jeopardy, which pertain to the controversy in the
companion OA. He contended that the discussion has inadvertently found
place in the present order and seeks correction of the error.
3. We have considered the Review Application and examined the
order dated 30.06.2026 in O.A. No. 2688/2022. The scope of review is
limited. It cannot be used to rehear the original proceedings or to substitute
a different decision merely because another view may be possible. At the
same time, an apparent accidental error in the judgment may be corrected
where the error is evident from the record and its correction does not
require a fresh adjudication on the merits.
4. On comparison of the relief claimed in the present OA with the
reasoning recorded in paragraph 7 of the order, we find that the discussion
concerning the imposition of dies-non as a further penalty and the principle

2026.10.23 11:42:13
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

4 M.A No. 4121/2026 in RA Diary No. 9029/2026 in OA 2688/2022
Item 35 (C-3)
of double jeopardy relates to the distinct controversy raised in O.A. No.
599/2023. That discussion does not address the issue of notional annual
increments which fell for consideration in the present OA. To that limited
extent, the Review Applicant pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the
order. The error, however, does not warrant reversal of the operative
direction issued in the present OA. Paragraph 8 of the order expressly
considers the claim for annual increments for the years 2018 and 2019 and
directs the respondents to grant those increments on a notional basis, as
had originally been allowed vide pay fixation order dated 17.01.2022. This
direction corresponds to the relief sought in O.A. No. 2688/2022. The mere
presence of an irrelevant discussion concerning the dies-non issue does not,
by itself, justify setting aside that direction or dismissing the OA.
5. Accordingly, the Review Application is allowed in part, limited to
correction of the apparent error identified above. The discussion in
paragraph 7 of the order dated 30.06.2026 in O.A. No. 2688/2022
concerning the treatment of the intervening period as dies-non and the
principle of double jeopardy shall not be read as a determination of the issue
arising in the present OA. The issue of dies-non falls for consideration in the
companion O.A. No. 599/2023 and shall be dealt with, if warranted, in the
review proceedings arising from that matter.
6. The operative direction contained in paragraph 8 of the order dated
30.06.2026 in O.A. No. 2688/2022, directing grant of annual increments for
the years 2018 and 2019 on a notional basis in terms of the original pay

2026.10.23 11:42:13
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

5 M.A No. 4121/2026 in RA Diary No. 9029/2026 in OA 2688/2022
Item 35 (C-3)
fixation order dated 17.01.2022, remains undisturbed. All other findings
and directions in the said order, to the extent they concern the relief claimed
in O.A. No. 2688/2022, remain unchanged. No opinion is expressed in this
Review Application on the merits or outcome of the separate review
proceedings concerning O.A. No. 599/2023.
7. The Review Application stands disposed of in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)

/Mbt/
2026.10.23 11:42:13
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'