Facts
The Applicants, formerly posted as Group 'C' Postal Assistants, succeeded in their original application (O.A. No. 1992/2025) via a common order dated 28.07.2025
Source reference: p.2, para. 1The Respondents (Department of Posts) challenged this order before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which dismissed the writ but granted liberty to file a review before the Tribunal
Source reference: p.3, para. 5Simultaneously, the Respondents challenged the same order before the Delhi High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Avinash Kumar & Anr. [W.P.(C) No. 237/2026], which was dismissed on 08.01.2026
Source reference: p.3, para. 6; p.4, para. 12The Respondents subsequently filed the present Miscellaneous Application (M.A. No. 260/2026) for condonation of delay and the Review Application (R.A. No. 42/2026) seeking a review of the July 2025 order
Source reference: p.2, para. 1Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the Review Application should be condoned.
Source reference: p.5, para. 32. Whether a Review Application is maintainable or sustainable after the underlying judgment has been upheld by the High Court.
Source reference: p.5, para. 15Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle of judicial finality and the doctrine of merger, noting that a review cannot be entertained once the superior court has upheld the impugned order.
Source reference: p.4, para. 13It relied on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. [W.P.(C) 15248/2022], which established that candidates cannot be terminated based on inconclusive CFSL reports
Source reference: p.4, para. 13Further, it referenced the Union of India’s policy decision dated 17.04.2025, which mandated the reinstatement of candidates whose terminations were based on negative CFSL reports where authorship was not established
Source reference: p.4, para. 13Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the Respondents had already sought judicial review of the original order dated 28.07.2025 before the Delhi High Court
Source reference: p.4, para. 12The High Court had dismissed the challenge, affirming that the matter was covered by established precedents and the government’s own remedial policy regarding CFSL reports
Source reference: p.4-5, para. 13The Tribunal reasoned that since the High Court had already upheld the Tribunal’s decision, the present Review Application was redundant and constituted a "misuse of the process of law"
Source reference: p.5, para. 15Following the parity established in a similar lead case (R.A. No. 12/2026), the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment
Source reference: p.5, para. 2-3Holding
The Tribunal allowed M.A. No. 260/2026, condoning the delay in filing.
However, it dismissed R.A. No. 42/2026, holding that the Review Application lacked merit as the Delhi High Court had already upheld the original order dated 28.07.2025
Source reference: p.5, paras. 15-16The Tribunal declined to impose costs despite characterizing the petition as a misuse of the legal process
Source reference: p.5, para. 15Original Court PDF
DEPARTMENT OF POSTSvsSANJEEV
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
