Facts
The Review Applicants (Union of India) sought to review a judgment dated 21.05.2025, which quashed an order dated 22.04.2022 and directed the restoration of the respondent's pay
Source reference: p. 2, para 2(i)The applicants initially faced compliance difficulties due to a clerical error in the original order regarding the date of the impugned order, which was corrected on 05.08.2025
Source reference: p. 2-3, para 2(ii-iii)After seeking legal advice from the Department of Legal Affairs (DoLA) and DoP&T regarding an appeal, the Central Government Standing Counsel advised filing a Review Application (RA) instead, asserting that the Tribunal failed to consider a DoP&T letter dated 09.01.2023 which rejected the respondent's regularization
Source reference: p. 3-4, para 2(iv-viii)This process resulted in an 80-day delay in filing the RA, for which a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for condonation of delay was filed
Source reference: p. 2, para 1Issues
1. Whether there existed "sufficient cause" to condone the 80-day delay in filing the Review Application under the Limitation Act
Source reference: p. 6, para 82. Whether the non-consideration of the DoP&T letter dated 09.01.2023 regarding the rejection of regularization constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying a review of the order dated 21.05.2025
Source reference: p. 9-10, para 2Law Applied
The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, as established in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Source reference: p. 5, para 4reiterated in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. (2025), which emphasizes that condonation requires a bona fide explanation free of gross negligence
Source reference: p. 6-7, para 8Regarding review jurisdiction, the Tribunal applied the principles of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as interpreted in State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta (2008), which limits review to errors apparent on the face of the record and prohibits re-arguing a case on merits or treating a review as an "appeal in disguise"
Source reference: p. 12-14, para 4-6Reasoning
Regarding the delay, the Tribunal found the 80-day lapse was not due to negligence but resulted from the necessity of obtaining a corrected order and the subsequent time-consuming administrative/legal consultations across multiple departments
Source reference: p. 7-8, para 9-10On the merits of the review, the Tribunal held that the primary issue in the Original Application (OA) was the legality of pay restoration, not regularization
Source reference: p. 14, para 7The DoP&T letter dated 09.01.2023 pertained to regularization and thus had no bearing on the core decision regarding pay
Source reference: p. 14, para 9The Tribunal clarified that its observation in para 18 of the original order regarding regularization was merely "advisory" and not a directive
Source reference: p. 14, para 8Consequently, the applicants failed to demonstrate any patent error, and the grounds raised were found to be an attempt to re-agitate the case on merits, which falls outside the narrow scope of review jurisdiction
Source reference: p. 15, para 14-15Holding
The Tribunal allowed M.A. No. 394/2026, condoning the 80-day delay in the interest of justice
However, it dismissed R.A. No. 43/2026, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated
Source reference: p. 16, para 16Finding the litigation unnecessary, the Tribunal imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Central Information Commission), to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund
Source reference: p. 16, para 17Original Court PDF
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAININGvsSANJEEV KUMAR KAIN
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in