(Under Circulation)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD st This the 21 day of May, 2024 REVIEW APPLICATION No. 22 of 2024 In ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1067 of 2017 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

1. Union of India through General Manager Eastern Railway Gorakhpur.

2. Divisional Manager, Eastern Railway, Ijjat Nagar, Bareilly.

…………… Review Applicants / Respondents By Advocate: Shri Bablu Singh and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma VERSUS Adesh Mishra Son of Late Ram Prakash Mishra Resident of House No. 4/166 Mohalla – Nunahai, Police Station – Kotwali, District Farrukhabad.

…………….. Review Respondents / Applicant O R D E R The instant review application has been filed by the review applicants who were the respondents in subject OA No. 1067 of 2017seeking review of the order and judgment dated 16.08.2023 passed in the said OA by this Tribunal. The operative portion / paragraph of the order passed in the above OA is quoted herein below:

“11. In view of the above quoted deliberations, the instant original application is allowed with following directions:

i. Respondents are hereby directed to make payment of Rs. 4,64,410/- to the applicant @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date when it becomes due.

ii. Respondents are also directed to make the payment of leave encashment of 115 days to the applicant @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date when it becomes due.”

2. The crux of the matter is that the applicant had filed the subject OA seeking a direction to the respondents to make payment of the entire amount which was deducted from his post retiral benefits (Gratuity) and also to make payment of leave encashment as admissible to him.

3. As is evident from the quotation given in the first paragraph of this judgment, the matter was decided by this Tribunal after hearing both the parties in detail and the original application was allowed holding that the case of the applicant held merit. As is evident from the operative portion of the said judgment as quoted in the first paragraph, while deciding the matter, both the parties were heard at length and all the documents, Circulars and case laws as were relied upon by the contesting parties were taken into consideration.

4. I have carefully gone through the review application.

5. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the order was pronounced on 16.08.2023 and the instant review application was received by the Registry on 02.05.2024. In accordance with the statutory rules, the review application must be filed within a period of one month from the date of pronouncement of the order under review. This implies that the instant review application must have been field by 16.09.2023. However, it was filed after a considerable delay of approximately more than seven months from the due date. Although the delay has been explained by way of the Delay Condonation Application MA No. 2266 of 2024 filed along with the review application, but said explanation is not plausible as respondents / review applicants have simply stated that the delay has been caused due to some procedural formalities. Adhering to such a superficial reason speaks for the laxity exercised on the part of the respondents as day to day delay has not been elucidated.

6. Further, it would be in the fitness of things to record here that the matter of condonation of delay of review application came up before the Full Bench of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G.Narasimha Rao Vs. Regional Joint Directror of School Education, Warangal and others -2005(4) SLR 720. The matter was also examined by the Full Bench with reference to Section 22(3)(f) of the AT Act, 1985 and other relevant provisions of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, provisions of the Limitation Act etc. and it is held that “a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the Review Application.” It was laid down that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay by taking aid and assistance of either