Shubh Kanta Bali vs KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGHTHAN

1
RA No.99/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

R.A. No. 99/2026 in
O.A. No. 388/2019

This is the day of September, 2026

Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Smt. Shubh Kanta Bali, Aged-73 Years,
W/o Sh. K.K. Bali,
Retired as TGT (Hindi) from KVS,
R/o 268, Chhotibaradari Part-I,
Jalandhar.
... Review Applicant


Versus

1. Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Through the Commissioner,
18, Institutional Area,
Shahzed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi.

2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Kendariya Vidyalaya Sangathan,
Regional Office, Sector-31A,
Chandigarh.

..Respondents

2026.09.
03
10:45:01
+05'30'
DAYAW
ATI

2
RA No.99/2026
ORDER (In Circulation)
By Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-

Present RA has been filed by the review applicant under
Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 r/w
Rule 17 of the CAT(P) Rules, 1987, seeking the following
prayer:-
“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be
pleased to pass an order of recalling/reviewing the
judgment dated 27.05.2026 passed by the Hon'ble
Tribunal in OA No.388/2019 and consequently,
decide the OA of the applicant after considering the
correct facts and documents which were already
placed on record on 11.05.2026.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem
fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant.”

2. The OA No. 388/ 2019 was filed by the applicant in the
OA under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985
seeking the following relief:
“(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be
pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned
5.10.2018, 14.10.2018 and dated 31.10.2018
(Annex.A/1 to A/3), declaring to the effect that the
same are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and
consequently, pass an order directing the
respondents to revise the pay of the applicant at par
with the pay of Smt.Pushpa Sharma, actually she got
and pension drawing from the due date i.e. w.e.f.
1.1.1996 with all the consequential benefits including
2026.09.
03
10:45:01
+05'30'
DAYAW
ATI

3
RA No.99/2026
the revision of retirement benefits and pension with
arrears.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further graciously
be pleased to pass an order directing the
respondents to refix the pay of the applicant w.e.f.
25.4.2007 after granting one promotional increments
as per rules with all the consequential benefits
including the revision of retirement benefits and
pension with arrears.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem
fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant
along with the costs of litigation.”
3. After considering the rival submissions by the learned
counsels and pleadings by both parties in the OA this
Tribunal vide order dated 27.5.2026 passed the following
order:
“14. We are therefore of the considered opinion that
the respondents were justified in rejecting the
applicant's claim for grant of one additional
increment upon promotion from PRT to TGT.
15. Consequently, no case for interference with the
impugned communications dated 05.10.2018,
14.10.2018 and 31.10.2018 is made out.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original
Application being devoid of merit is dismissed.”
4. The review applicant in their Review Application has
taken the following ground seeking review of the said order:
“2. That the Hon'ble Tribunal vide judgment dated
27.05.2026 dismissed the OA of the applicant. It is
submitted that there are errors on the face of the
record on the judgment dated 27.05.2026 and the
OA of the applicant has been decided without
considering the correct facts which are already
2026.09.
03
10:45:01
+05'30'
DAYAW
ATI

4
RA No.99/2026
placed on record and hence this Review Application
on the following grounds;
a) Because, in Para 6 of the judgment the Hon'ble
Tribunal observed as under;
"6. The applicant has argued that the aforesaid
rectification was merely an eyewash and was
not actually implemented in substance.
However, apart from making such assertion,
documentary material has been produced
conclusively establishing that Smt. Pushpa
Sharma continued to draw higher pay or
pensionary benefits even after the review and
re-fixation exercise undertaken vide order dated
29.10.2014. In absence of cogent evidence
demonstrating continuation of the disparity
after the rectification exercise reflected in the
documents placed on record by the applicant
herself, this Tribunal is unable to conclude that
any enforceable anomaly continued to subsist
thereafter."
It is submitted that on 11.05.2026 during the course
of argument the applicant produced the copy of latest
PPO of the applicant as well as the last PPO of Smt.
Pushpa Sharma issued after 7th CPC from which it is
clear that the last pay of Smt. Pushpa Sharma has
not been reduced and she is still getting her pension
on the basis of last pay as Rs.62220/-(Gross pension
Rs.31100/-)whereas, the applicant is getting her
pension on the basis of last pay drawn Rs.40,400/-
(Rs.30200/-). It is submitted that both these latest
PPO taken on record by the Hon'ble Tribunal on
11.05.2026 and therefore, observation given in para
6 that no independent documentary material has
been produced conclusively establishing that Smt.
Pushpa Sharma continued to draw higher pay or
pensionary benefits even after the review and re-
2026.09.
03
10:45:01
+05'30'
DAYAW
ATI

5
RA No.99/2026
fixation exercise undertaken vide order dated
29.10.2014 is an error on the face of the record.”
5. The mere mention of the PPOs of the applicant in OA and
one Smt. Puspa Sharma does not address the core issue as to
when the pay fixations/refixations in respect of these two
employees took place. That will give clear picture regarding the
pay anomally at any point of time comparing pay fixation of
one employee vis-a-vis another. PPOs are not pay fixation
orders; these are based on previous pay fixations, even pay
fixation at the time of retirement. Hence, the review applicant
has misunderstood the grounds based on which the order
dated 27.05.2026 has been passed. Selected reading misses
the integrity of the order. And this is no reason for review.
There is no apparent error of facts or law on face of facts in
the order dated 27.5.2026 in OA No. 388/2019.
6. In view of the above, the RA lacks merit and hence is
dismissed by way of circulation.



(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)


/daya/

2026.09.
03
10:45:01
+05'30'
DAYAW
ATI