CAT Keeps Employee’s 2018–19 Notional Increments Intact, Clarifies Dies-Non Issue Belongs To Separate Case

The applicant sought notional annual increments for 2018 and 2019, with consequential pay fixation, in O.A. No. 2688/2022.

A separate companion proceeding, O.A. No. 599/2023, concerned whether the period between his dismissal and reinstatement could be treated as dies-non, resulting in denial of pay and allowances.

In its order dated 30 June 2026 in O.A. No. 2688/2022, the Tribunal granted the increments but also included discussion of dies-non and double jeopardy.

The applicant sought review, alleging that this discussion—and the operative conclusions in the two OAs—had been inadvertently interchanged.

The Tribunal separately condoned a five-day delay in filing the review application.

The Tribunal applied the limited scope of review: review is not a rehearing of the original proceedings and cannot be used to substitute a different decision merely because another view is possible.

An apparent accidental error may, however, be corrected where it is evident from the record and correction does not require fresh adjudication on the merits.

No statute or precedent was cited in the order.

Comparing the relief sought in O.A. No. 2688/2022 with the reasoning in paragraph 7, the Tribunal found that the discussion of dies-non and double jeopardy related to the distinct issue in O.A. No. 599/2023 and did not address the annual-increment claim.

That mismatch constituted an apparent inconsistency warranting limited correction.

It did not justify reversing the increment direction, however, because paragraph 8 expressly addressed the 2018 and 2019 increments and directed their notional grant in accordance with the original pay-fixation order dated 17 January 2022.

The review application was allowed in part: the discussion in paragraph 7 concerning dies-non and double jeopardy was not to be read as determining an issue in O.A. No. 2688/2022.

The direction to grant notional annual increments for 2018 and 2019 remained undisturbed, as did the other findings and directions concerning that OA.

The review application was disposed of with no order as to costs.