The right to review is strictly limited to the timeframe established by applicable rules, and delays cannot be condoned without statutory authority.

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. This Review Application has been filed by the respondents under Section 22 (3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking review of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Original Application No. 060/00178/2022, along with, a Misc. Application No. 234/2025 seeking condondation of delay of 110 days in filing the Review Application.

2. I have gone through the pleadings.

Digitally

3. The present Review Application has been filed after a delay of 110 days and, therefore, it 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 question which arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in filing the Review Application.

4. 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.”

5. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu (supra) while ruling in the favour of affected person, who are not party to the O.A, held that they can seek review of the order but within the limitation period prescribed under the relevant rules. It has been held as under:-

In such a situation, the question arises; what remedy is available to such affected persons who are not parties to a case, yet the decision in such a case adversely affect to their rights in the matter of their seniority. In the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal that the only remedy available to the affected persons is to file a Review of the judgment which affects them and not to file a fresh application under Section 19 of the Act. Section 22 (3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure and Rules) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Ordinarily, right of Digitally review is available only to those who are party to a case. MAMTA However, even if we give wider meaning to the expression "a WADHWA person feeling aggrieved" occurring in Section 22 of the Act whether such person aggrieved can seek review by opening the whole case decided by the Tribunal. The right of review is not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is possible only on limited grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of finality of a decision. Besides that, the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given can not monitor the case for all times to come. Public policy demands that there should be end to law suits and if the view of the tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricte