Facts
Dr. M. Rajesh filed Review Application No. 170/00001/2026 against the order in O.A. 170/00240/2021 dated January 3, 2025, issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal
Source reference: p.2, para.1The review application was filed on January 6, 2026, approximately one year after the original order
Source reference: p.2, para.1, p.4, para.4To address this delay, the applicant also filed Miscellaneous Application No. 170/00021/2026 for condonation of delay
Source reference: p.2, para.1The applicant cited reasons for the delay, including living in Japan, returning to India on December 7, 2025, his previous counsel refusing to act, and his new counsel being ill at the time
Source reference: p.2, para.2The original application (O.A. 170/00240/2021) was dismissed by the Tribunal in view of the order passed in O.A. No.167/2021, which confirmed the penalty of compulsory retirement for the applicant
Source reference: p.7, para.11Issues
Whether the delay of approximately 11 months in filing the Review Application should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the applicant
Source reference: p.2, para.2, p.4, para.5Whether the Review Application filed beyond the stipulated 30-day period is maintainable
Source reference: p.3, para.3Whether the Review Application presented valid grounds, such as an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter, to warrant a review of the Tribunal's original order dated January 3, 2025
Source reference: p.7, para.10, p.7, para.11Law Applied
The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which mandates that no application for review shall be entertained unless filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order sought to be reviewed
Source reference: p.3, para.3It also considered Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), regarding the grounds for review
Source reference: p.3, para.4, p.4, para.6The principles derived from K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India, 1997 (6) SCC 473, affirmed that the right of review is available on restricted grounds and must be filed within the period of limitation
Source reference: p.3, para.4G. Narasimha Rao Vs. Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal and others, 2005(4) SLR 720, established that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone delay under the Limitation Act for review applications
Source reference: p.3, para.4The Tribunal also referred to State of West Bengal And Others v. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 8 SCC 612, which delineates the restricted scope of review, emphasizing that review powers are akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, and do not permit re-adjudication of earlier decisions
Source reference: p.5, para.7Rajendra Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others, (2007) 15 SCC 513, underlines that an order must suffer from an error apparent on its face to warrant review
Source reference: p.6, para.8Inder Chand Jain (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs., (2009) 14 SCC 663, confirms that a review is not an appeal in disguise and is meant for correcting mistakes, not substituting views
Source reference: p.6, para.9Reasoning
The Tribunal considered the Review Application to be time-barred as it was filed approximately 11 months after the original order, significantly exceeding the 30-day limit prescribed by Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987
Source reference: p.2, para.1, p.3, para.3The reasons provided in the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay, such as the applicant living in Japan, a change of counsel, and the new counsel's illness, were deemed insufficient and not valid grounds for condonation
Source reference: p.2, para.2, p.4, para.5Citing precedents like G. Narasimha Rao, the Tribunal asserted it lacked jurisdiction to condone such a significant delay
Source reference: p.3, para.4Furthermore, the Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matters, as required by Section 22(3)(f) of the AT Act and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, to warrant a review
Source reference: p.7, para.10, p.7, para.11The applicant's contention that the original O.A. was not decided on merits was not supported by cogent reasons or new facts to justify a review, aligning with the principles laid down in Kamal Sengupta and Rajendra Kumar which restrict review to self-evident errors
Source reference: p.7, para.11The Tribunal reiterated that a review is not an appeal in disguise, following the dictum in Inder Chand Jain, and therefore mere disagreement with the original decision or a desire for re-hearing was not a sufficient ground
Source reference: p.6, para.9Holding
The Miscellaneous Application No. 170/00021/2026 for condonation of delay was rejected due to the unreasonable nature of the delay and the insufficient grounds provided
Consequently, the Review Application No. 170/00001/2026 was dismissed as both time-barred and lacking valid grounds for review under the established legal principles
Source reference: p.8, para.12The Tribunal found no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, nor any new facts or grounds that could warrant a review of its order dated January 3, 2025
Source reference: p.7, para.10, p.7, para.11There were no costs awarded
Source reference: p.8, para.12Original Court PDF
Dr.M.Rajesh v. Union of India & Ors. R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in