CAT Leaves Government Employee’s 2018–21 Pay Claim Dismissed, Clarifying His Increment Dispute Was Separate

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s judgment dated 30 June 2026 dismissing O.A. No. 599/2023, which challenged the treatment of the period from 15 May 2018 to 31 October 2021 as dies-non and the denial of pay and allowances for that period.

He argued that parts of the judgment—particularly the discussion of stoppage and restoration of increments and Y. Venkata Sastry (Died) by LRs v. State Bank of India—concerned the distinct issue in O.A. No. 2688/2022, heard alongside O.A. No. 599/2023, and that the operative conclusions in the two matters had been inadvertently interchanged.

He sought correction of the judgment and an order allowing O.A. No. 599/2023. The Tribunal first condoned a five-day delay in filing the review application.

Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, provides the basis invoked for review.

Review jurisdiction is limited: it cannot be used to rehear a matter or substitute a different conclusion on the merits, but an established accidental error apparent on the face of the record may be corrected so the order accurately reflects the adjudication; any correction must remain confined to that error and cannot reopen the original application.

Fundamental Rules 54 and 54-A were identified as relevant to the underlying dies-non and pay-and-allowances dispute, but their application was not determined in the review proceedings.

The Tribunal accepted that the two original applications involved distinct causes of action and reliefs: O.A. No. 599/2023 concerned dies-non and pay and allowances, while O.A. No. 2688/2022 concerned restoration of annual increments.

It therefore clarified that the increment discussion, including the reference to Y. Venkata Sastry, did not determine the claim in O.A. No. 599/2023.

However, the perceived overlap in the judgments did not itself provide a legally sustainable basis to replace the operative conclusion in one application with that of the other. The review could clarify the scope of the discussion but could not be used to allow O.A. No. 599/2023 without reopening its distinct merits.

It declined to allow O.A. No. 599/2023 by substituting its operative conclusion; the dismissal remained undisturbed. No opinion was expressed on the correctness of the separate decision in O.A. No. 2688/2022. The review application was disposed of with no order as to costs.