A review application requires specific justifiable grounds, such as errors apparent on the face of the record, and cannot be based on subsequent developments or changes in law.

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-

This Review Application has been filed by the applicants (respondents in OA) seeking review of the order dated 16.05.2024, passed in Original Application No.89/2024 relying upon the interim order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 06.09.2024 passed in MA Diary No. 2400/2024 in SLP (C) No. 4722/2021.

2. From perusal of the order under review, it is found that the aforesaid OA No.89/2024 was allowed in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.04.2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2471/2023 — Director (Admn. And HR) KPTCL & Ors. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors was disposed of.

3. The Review Application against the order dated 16.05.2024 has been filed on 13.01.2025 i.e. after more than seven months, for which a delay condonation application no. 55/2025 has been filed with prayer to condone the delay mainly on ground that after the order of the Tribunal dated 07.12.2023 was received in the office of the applicant, the department has proceeded to comply with the directions but in the meantime, Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the order dated 06.09.2024 in MA No. 2400/2024 with specific guidelines. Hence, it is stated that there is no deliberate delay on the part of the applicants in filing the review application.

4. 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.

5. 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 Oder 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 13.01.2025 impugning the order dated 16.05.2024 of this Tribunal.

6. It is seen that there is delay of more than seven months thus, we do not find the reasons furnished in the application for delay condonation to be adequate enough to consider condonation of delay, which is also not permissible as per law in view of case laws discussed above. Accordingly, the Misc. Application No. 55/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the review application is liable to be dismissed.

7. Regarding merits, the review of the order of this Tribunal is done under the section 22(3)(f) 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 —

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

(b). by a decree or order from which no appeal is allow