JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

This writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its components for assailing the order dated 08.06.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), dismissing the Review Application No. 40/00009/2019, supported by Misc. Application No. 149/2019 preferred by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay of 768 days in filing the Review Application, through which the order dated 04.08.2017, passed in Original Application No. 40/00063/2017 was sought to be recalled/reviewed.

2. Learned counsel Mr. S. C. Keyal, representing the Union of India vehemently and fervently contended that the Tribunal was totally unjustified in rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the Review Application by holding that there was no power with the Tribunal so as to condone the delay. He placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr., reported in 2002 SCC OnLineCal597, further reaffirmed by Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Krishna Mondal and Ors., reported in MANU/WB 2622/2019. He submitted that the Full Benches of Calcutta High Court, after adverting to the statutory provisions contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1985”) and the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1987”), have held in unequivocal terms that the Tribunal has the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay occasioned in filing Review Application despite the restriction contained in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987. He thus implored the Court to accept the writ petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to consider the Review Application on merits after condoning the delay.

3. Per contra, Dr. G. J. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Keyal. Dr. Sharma placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu and Others vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 473, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“4. As stated earlier, the appellant has challenged the impugned seniority list prepared on the basis of the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Transfer Application No. 263 of 1986 dated 14-8-1987, by means of an application under Section 19 of the Act wherein there was no prayer for setting aside the judgment dated 14-8-1987 of the Administrative Tribunal. It is true that the judgment given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in TA No. 263 of 1986 would have come in the way of the appellant. Often in service matters the judgments rendered either by the Tribunal or by the Court also affect other persons, who are not parties to the cases. It may help one class of employees and at the same time adversely affect another class of employees. In such circumstances the judgments of the courts or the tribunals may not be strictly judgments in personam affecting only the parties to the cases, they would be judgments in rem. In such a situation, the question arises: What remedy is available to such affected persons who are not parties to a case, yet the decision in such a case adversely affects their rights in the matter of their seniority. In the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal is that the only remedy available to the affected persons is to file a review of the judgment which affects them and not to file a fresh application under Section 19 of the Act. Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) provides that no application for revi