MANOJ KUMAR BARANWAL vs DEFENCE

1 M.A No. 4176/2026 in RA Diary No. 9031/2026 in OA 599/2023
Item 36 (C-3)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

M.A. No. 4176/2026 in RA Diary No. 9031/2026
in OA 599/2023

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 11:42:53
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

2 M.A No. 4176/2026 in RA Diary No. 9031/2026 in OA 599/2023
Item 36 (C-3)
ORDER

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

MA No. 4176/2026 :-
This MA has been filed seeking condonation of delay of five days in filing
the accompanying Review Application against the judgment dated
30.06.2026 passed in OA No. 599/2023.
For the reasons stated in the MA, the delay of five days in filing the
Review Application is condoned. The MA stands allowed and disposed of
accordingly.
RA Diary No. 9031/2026 :-
The present Review Application has been filed seeking
review/modification of the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in OA No.
599/2023. The prayer made in the RA is reproduced below :-
“a. Review the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A.
No.599/2023;
b. Hold that the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A.
No.599/2023 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the
record inasmuch as the operative conclusion dismissing 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.599/2023 and O.A. No.2688/2022;
c. Correct the said error by modifying the operative portion
pertaining to O.A. No.599/2023 and consequently allow O.A.
No.599/2023 in terms of the findings and reasoning already
recorded by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
d. Pass such consequential and ancillary directions as may be
necessary to ensure that the judgments rendered in



2026.10.23 11:42:53
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

3 M.A No. 4176/2026 in RA Diary No. 9031/2026 in OA 599/2023
Item 36 (C-3)
O.A.No.599/2023 and O.A. No.2688/2022 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. We have considered the Review Application and examined the
judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A. No. 599/2023 alongside the
judgment passed on the same date in O.A. No. 2688/2022. Although both
Original Applications were heard together, separate orders were passed
because the reliefs sought therein were distinct. O.A. No. 599/2023
concerned the treatment of the period from 15.05.2018 to 31.10.2021 as
dies-non and the denial of pay and allowances for that period, whereas O.A.
No. 2688/2022 concerned the applicant's claim for restoration of annual
increments on a notional basis.
3. The Review Applicant has submitted that the discussion in
paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order in O.A. No. 599/2023, particularly the
discussion concerning the effect of stoppage of increments and the judgment
in Y. Venkata Sastry (Died) by LRs vs. State Bank of India , pertains to
the controversy involved in O.A. No. 2688/2022. It is contended that the
discussion and the operative conclusions in the two judgments have
inadvertently become inconsistent and that the error requires correction
under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with
Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
4. The record confirms that the two Original Applications involved
different causes of action and different reliefs. The question of restoration

2026.10.23 11:42:53
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

4 M.A No. 4176/2026 in RA Diary No. 9031/2026 in OA 599/2023
Item 36 (C-3)
of annual increments was specifically considered in O.A. No. 2688/2022,
whereas the controversy in O.A. No. 599/2023 related to the treatment of
the intervening period between dismissal and reinstatement. The
discussion in the latter order must, therefore, be confined to the controversy
arising in that Original Application.
5. The scope of review, however, is limited. Review jurisdiction
cannot be exercised merely to rehear a matter or to substitute a different
conclusion on the merits. At the same time, an accidental error apparent
on the face of the record, if established, may be corrected so that the order
accurately reflects the adjudication of the controversy before the Tribunal.
The correction must remain confined to the error identified and cannot be
used as a means of reopening the entire Original Application.
6. In the present case, the Review Applicant has sought not only
correction of the discussion but also modification of the operative portion of
the order in O.A. No. 599/2023 so as to allow that Original Application. The
latter relief cannot follow automatically from the fact that the two matters
were heard together or that certain passages in the judgments appear
inconsistent. The claim concerning dies-non and pay and allowances must
remain distinct from the claim concerning annual increments. The operative
conclusion in one matter cannot simply be substituted by the operative
conclusion in the other without a legally sustainable basis.
7. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the review must be
confined to ensuring that the discussion in O.A. No. 599/2023 is read in the
context of the issue actually arising therein. The question for consideration

2026.10.23 11:42:53
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

5 M.A No. 4176/2026 in RA Diary No. 9031/2026 in OA 599/2023
Item 36 (C-3)
in that Original Application was whether the competent authority's decision
to treat the period from 15.05.2018 to 31.10.2021 as dies-non and to deny
pay and allowances for that period warranted interference. The applicant's
challenge to the said decision was required to be examined with reference to
the applicable provisions of Fundamental Rules 54 and 54-A, the effect of
the earlier order modifying the penalty, and the circumstances in which the
applicant was reinstated. The discussion concerning the restoration of
annual increments, which formed the subject matter of O.A. No. 2688/2022,
cannot independently determine the outcome of O.A. No. 599/2023.
8. Accordingly, the Review Application is allowed to the limited extent
that the discussion in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order dated 30.06.2026 in
O.A. No. 599/2023 shall be read subject to the clarification that the issue of
restoration of annual increments, including the discussion concerning Y.
Venkata Sastry (Died) by LRs vs. State Bank of India , pertains to the
distinct controversy in O.A. No. 2688/2022 and shall not be treated as the
determination of the claim for pay and allowances for the intervening period
in O.A. No. 599/2023. The prayer to allow O.A. No. 599/2023 merely by
substituting its operative conclusion with that of the companion matter is
declined. The dismissal of O.A. No. 599/2023, as recorded in the operative
portion of the order dated 30.06.2026, remains undisturbed. No opinion is
expressed in the present proceedings on the correctness of the decision in
O.A. No. 2688/2022, which is a separate order.



2026.10.23 11:42:53
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'

6 M.A No. 4176/2026 in RA Diary No. 9031/2026 in OA 599/2023
Item 36 (C-3)
9. 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 11:42:53
MAYA B TARAGI
+05'30'