Delay in review application not condoned without sufficient cause or material alteration to legal position.

The review applicant filed MA No. 398/2026 seeking condonation of a 60-day delay in filing a Review Application (RA) against the Final Order dated 28.08.2025 passed in O.A. No. 351/2019.

The applicant contended that after the final order, he discovered an Office Order dated 05.02.2015 issued by the respondent-NPCC, providing for encashment of various types of leave, which he claimed was deliberately suppressed by the respondents.

He submitted that this Office Order was relevant for adjudication but could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.

1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the 60-day delay in filing the Review Application?

2. Whether the newly discovered Office Order dated 05.02.2015 constitutes a ground for review, indicating an error apparent on the face of the record?

The Tribunal considered the principle that condonation of delay in filing a review application requires the applicant to demonstrate sufficient cause for not approaching the Tribunal within the prescribed period.

It also acknowledged that the grounds raised must fall within the limited scope of review jurisdiction and that a review requires an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Tribunal considered the review applicant's submissions and examined the Office Order dated 05.02.2015.

It observed that the Office Order primarily dealt with Earned Leave (EL) and did not expressly provide for the encashment of Medical Leave or Sick Leave as independent categories, thus contradicting the applicant's contention.

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the said Office Order was issued on 05.02.2015, long before the original O.A. was filed and adjudicated, culminating in the Final Order dated 28.08.2025.

The applicant failed to provide any material demonstrating due diligence as to why this order could not have been obtained or produced during the original proceedings.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that even if the Office Order had not been produced earlier, its contents did not materially alter the legal position regarding the encashment of leave categories other than Earned Leave, and therefore did not reveal an error apparent on the face of the record for invoking review jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the MA No. 398/2026 was dismissed, and as a result, the accompanying Review Application was also dismissed.