Facts
The captioned OAs (original applications) were decided by a common order/judgment dated 28.07.2025
Source reference: p.4Aggrieved by this, the respondents in the OAs (the petitioners in the present RA) approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh via various Writ Petitions, which were dismissed with liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Review Applications
Source reference: p.5, p.7Subsequently, the Review Applicants also approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi via different Writ Petitions, including WP No. 237/2026, to challenge the same common order/judgment dated 28.07.2025.
Source reference: no citationThe Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed these Writ Petitions by an order/judgment dated 08.01.2026
Source reference: p.6, p.8The Review Applicants filed the present Review Applications (RAs) and accompanying MAs for condonation of delay, citing administrative reasons for the delay
Source reference: p.5Issues
Whether the delay in filing the Review Applications should be condoned
Source reference: p.5Whether the Review Applications, filed under the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, are maintainable given that the common order/judgment of the Tribunal has since been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Source reference: p.8, p.9Law Applied
The Tribunal invoked the principle of res judicata or issue estoppel by relying on the pronouncements of higher courts.
Source reference: p.9Specifically, it applied the principle that once an order of a subordinate tribunal has been upheld by a superior court, particularly after a full consideration of the merits (as indicated by the High Court of Delhi's reference to and reliance on a Supreme Court-affirmed judgment), the matter cannot be re-agitated before the subordinate tribunal
Source reference: p.9The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi relied on its own judgment in Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. (W.P.(C) 15248/2022 dated 18.07.2024), which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 16.12.2024
Source reference: p.8Reasoning
The court granted the MAs for condonation of delay, acknowledging the administrative reasons cited for the delay in filing the RAs
Source reference: p.5, p.6, p.9However, regarding the RAs themselves, the Tribunal observed that while the RAs were filed based on the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the same common order/judgment of the Tribunal (dated 28.07.2025) had subsequently been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 08.01.2026
Source reference: p.8, p.9The Delhi High Court's decision specifically referenced and relied upon a previously decided case, *Union of India v. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr.*, which had also been affirmed by the Supreme Court
Source reference: p.8, p.9The Tribunal found that once a higher court had upheld its order, the RAs constituted a misuse of the process of law because the underlying issues had already been definitively settled by a superior judicial authority
Source reference: p.9Holding
The MAs for condonation of delay were allowed, and the delay in filing the captioned RAs was condoned
However, the Tribunal dismissed the Review Applications (RAs)
Source reference: p.10The court held that once the relevant order/judgment of the Tribunal had been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, after referring to and relying upon a Supreme Court-affirmed precedent, the RAs constituted a misuse of the process of law and were consequently dismissed with a nominal cost
Source reference: p.9, p.10Original Court PDF
Union of India & Ors. v. Kanwar Singh & Anr. and connected matters [MA No. 612/2026 & Anr. in OA No. 4228/2024 & Anr. and connected matters]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in