O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. This Review Application has been filed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking review of the order dated 11.08.2023 passed in Original Application No. 060/89/2023. The review applicants herein, who were not party to the O.A. No. 89/2023, are stated to be affected by the order dated 11.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 89/2023.

2. Along with the Review Application, the review applicants have filed a Misc. Application No. 424/2024 seeking condondation of delay of

184 days in filing the Review Application.

3. We have heard the parties on M.A. No. 424/2024.

4. The review applicants averred that they were aggrieved against the action of the respondents in forwarding the cases of the original applicant along with other eligible candidates to UPSC for holding DPC vide letter dated 04.10.2023, therefore, they challenged it before this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 1116/2023, wherein the respondents in short reply took objection regarding the order dated 11.08.2023 having attained finality. Consequently, the review applicants challenged the order dated 11.08.2023 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.02.2024 with liberty to approach the Tribunal to seek review of the impugned order through filing of an appropriate application. Pursuant thereto, the present Review Application has been filed along with the M.A. No. 424/2024 seeking condonation of delay of 184 days in filing the present Review Application.

5. The original applicant has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant for condonation of delay by filing reply to the M.A. wherein they take the preliminary objection with regard to limitation of the R.A. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India, 1997 (3) SCT 639 and judgment of the Hon‟ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Chanchal Nag (WP(C)/3034/2021 decided on

27.03.2023.

6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides.

7. Admittedly, the Review Application is time barred as per Rule 17 of the C.A.T. (procedure) Rules, which prescribed limitation for filing review and provides that “no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed”. The present Review Application has been filed after a delay of 184 days. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in filing the Review Application.

8. The Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 prescribes the procedure for filing the Review Application which reads as under:-

“No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed.”

From the reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that the period to file Review Application would commence from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Since the review applicants themselves have admitted that the order dated 11.08.2023 came to their notice in November, 2023, therefore, the review applicants should have taken a chance to file review within 30 days. However, the review applicants, at that, juncture, were feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.10.2023 whereby the respondents forwarded the cases of applicant and other eligible candidates to the UPSC for holding DPC, pursuant to order dated 11.08.2023 passed by this Tribunal and challenged it by filing O.A. No. 1116/2023, which shows that despite having knowledge of the order dated 11.08.2023, the review applicants chose not to take any steps to file review application before this Tribunal.

9. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu (supra) while ruling in the favour of affected