Review applications must be filed within statutory time limits; failure to do so renders them non-maintainable.

ORDER

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)

The present Review Application has been filed by the applicant (respondents in the Original Application) under Circulation Rules seeking a review of the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.599/2024. Since, the Review Application has been filed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 along with a Misc. Application No.1179/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the instant Review Application, which is supported by an affidavit.

2. The only reason assigned in the accompanying affidavit is that due to long administrative process and some procedural formalities, the delay took place but no other reason assigned for the delay.

3. Admittedly, the present Review Application is filed beyond 30 days with a delay condonation application under Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which states as under:-

"17. Application for review (1) No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed.”

Hence, the Review Application filed beyond 30 days will not be maintainable in terms of the aforesaid Rule 17.

4 . In the case of K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India - 1997 (6) SCC 473 (Para 4), while examining the provisions of Section 22 (3) (f) of the AT Act and the Rule 17(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules and also order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the right of review is available to the aggrieved person on restricted ground as mentioned in the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation. The matter of condonation of delay in such cases also came before the Full Bench of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Narasimha Rao Vs. Regional Joint Director of School Education , Warangal and others- 2005(4) SLR 720 and it was held that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay under the Limitation Act. In this case, this Review Application was filed on 24.02.2025 impugning the order dated 30.05.2024 of this Tribunal after a delay of more than Nine months.

5. It is clearly seen that there is delay of more than Nine months and as per the M.A No.1179/2025, delay in filing this Review Application is not explained at all except vaguely telling that some long administrative process and procedural formalities made the delay, which are not a valid reason for accepting the said M.A for condonation of delay. Such reasons cannot be accepted to be satisfactory. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application No.1179/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Regarding merits, the review of the order of this Tribunal is done under the section 22(3)(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with provisions of the rule 1 Order 47 of the CPC which states as under: -

“1. Application for review of judgment (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(i) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(j) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(k) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the recurd, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order"

7.