JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, with the following reliefs :

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in review application No. 20/2016 in Original Application No. 561/2005, Surendra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow to decide the review application No. 20/2016 in Original Application No. 561/2005, Surendra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others on merits.”

B. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. In the year 2001, the petitioner was engaged as daily wage casual labour under the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax, Faizabad and continued to work as such till his services was terminated orally w.e.f. 02.09.2005.

3. The aforesaid oral order of termination w.e.f. 02.09.2005 was challenged by the petitioner by preferring Original Application No. 561 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal”). The Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 30.09.2011, dismissed the aforesaid original application.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2011, the petitioner preferred writ petition No. 1551 (S/B) of 2013 before this Court. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while recording the submission of the petitioner that in an identical matter, a review application was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the review application, disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file review application before the Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 21.01.2016.

5. Apparently, pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 21.01.2016, the petitioner preferred Review Application No. 20 of 2016 before the Tribunal, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 561 of 2005. The learned Tribunal, noting the provision of Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and also the fact that though in writ petition No. 1551 (S/B) of 2013, this Court had passed the order regarding filing of review application to the Tribunal on 21.01.2016, however, the petitioner preferred review application only on 17.05.2016 and thus arrived at a conclusion that there being no provision for condonation of delay under Rule 17 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the review application would not be maintainable and accordingly, vide judgment and order dated 13.03.2023, the learned Tribunal dismissed the review application. It is this order dated 13.03.2023, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.

C. SUBMISSIONS

6. Heard Shri Ajay Pandey, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Shri Kushagra Dikshit, learned Counsel representing the respondents/Union of India. This court records valuable suggestion by Mr. Apoorva Tiwari, Advocate, who was requested by this Court to give his assistance, keeping in view the significant question of law involved in this petition.

7. Learned Counsel representing the petitioner, at the outset, has fairly submitted that in the instant writ petition, he has not challenged the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No. 561 of 2005, but this writ petition is limited to the extent of challenging the order dated 13.03.2023, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the review application seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2011 (supra) only on the ground that the learned Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the review application.

8. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order sought to be reviewed was passed by the learned Tribunal on 30.09.2011 and the same