Review applications are non-maintainable once the underlying judgment has been affirmed by a superior court.

The Review Applicants (Union of India) sought a review of the Tribunal's order dated October 16, 2025, which had ruled in favor of the Respondent, a Postal Assistant

Along with the Review Application (RA), the applicants filed MA No. 979/2026 seeking condonation of a 46-day delay in filing, citing administrative processing time

The Applicants contended that the Respondent had concealed material facts in the original proceedings

However, the Respondent argued that identical RAs arising from the same common judgment had already been dismissed by the Tribunal on February 10, 2026, following the dismissal of similar challenges by the High Courts of Delhi and Punjab & Haryana

1. Whether the delay of 46 days in filing the Review Application should be condoned.

2. Whether there are sufficient grounds to review the order dated October 16, 2025, particularly in light of the High Court of Delhi upholding the Tribunal's prior common judgments on the same subject matter.

The court applied the principle of judicial discipline regarding identical matters and the doctrine of merger.

It relied on the precedent set in Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. (W.P.(C) 15248/2022), where the Delhi High Court held that termination based on negative CFSL reports where authorship was not established is unsustainable

This was further reinforced by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Special Leave Petition against the Sanjeev Kumar judgment on December 16, 2024

Additionally, the court noted the Union of India’s policy decision dated April 17, 2025, to reinstate candidates in cases where CFSL reports were inconclusive

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural delay, condoning the 46-day lapse as it was deemed bona fide and administrative rather than willful

On the merits of the RA, the Tribunal observed that the underlying legal issue—termination based on inconclusive CFSL reports—had been exhaustively litigated.

The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court, in Union of India & Ors. v. Avinash Kumar & Anr., had already upheld the Tribunal’s common order, specifically citing the Sanjeev Kumar precedent and the Government’s own policy to reinstate such candidates

The Tribunal reasoned that since the High Court had already affirmed the correctness of the original order, the present RA lacked fresh grounds and constituted a "misuse of the process of law"

Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to diverge from its previous dismissal of identical RAs

However, the Review Application (RA No. 37/2026) was dismissed, as the original judgment had already been upheld by the High Court and no new grounds for review were established

No order as to costs was made