CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Review Application No. 060/00003/2021 in Original Application No.060/01517/2018 &

M.A. No. 060/00229/2021 Decided on: 01.08.2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)

1. Dr. Rajiv Kumar, aged 53 years, S/o Sh. Madan Lal, working as Chief Medical Officer, Staff Clinic, PGIMER, Sector-12, Chandigarh-160012.

Group A.

2. Dr. Neelam Choudhary, age 51 years, D/o Sh. C.R. Choudhary, working as Chief Medical Officer, Deptt. of Obst. & Gynae, PGIMER, Sector-12, Chandigarh-160012. Group A.

.... Applicants By Advocate: Sh. Rakesh Sobti Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector-12 Chandigarh through Director-160012.

......Review Applicant

3. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

... .Respondents By Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC

O R D E R (Oral)

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. This Review Application has been filed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking review of the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in Original Application No. 060/1517/2018, along with, a Misc. Application No. 229/2021 seeking condondation of delay of 326 days in filing the Review Application.

2. Upon notice of M.A. 229/2021, the original applicant filed reply to M.A. opposing the prayer of the review applicant for condonation of delay.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on M.A. 229/2021.

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

5. 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 326 days. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in filing the Review Application.

6. 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. Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to explain the delay on the ground of Covid-19 pandemic situation and placed reliance upon the order of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 to extend limitation period in view thereof. This argument was countered by the learned counsel for the original applicant stating that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide the order aforementioned extended the limitation w.e.f. 15.03.2020 whereas the limitation period for filing review application was already over by 14.02.2020 as the copy of order was delivered to the respondents on 15.01.2020. The argument of the original applicant has force. The review applicant cannot be given the benefit of the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court regarding extension of limitation period due to pandemic situation since the limitation to file R.A. had already expired on 14.02.2020 before the extension of period w.e.f. 15.03.2020.

7. The original applicant has placed reliance 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