The Central Administrative Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to condone delay in filing a Review Application, as the 30-day limitation period under Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is mandatory and not subject to the Limitation Act.

(Reserved on 20.01.2026

ORDER

I have heard Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the review applicant, and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the review respondents.

2. The present Review Application has been filed by the applicant on 23.05.2018 under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, read with Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking review of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed in OA No. 1570/2010. Along with the Review Application, the applicant has also filed MA No. 330/01710/2018 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Application.

3. As per Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, a Review Application is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed.

4. In the Misc. Application for condonation of delay, the review applicant has stated that the final order in the Original Application was pronounced on 28.03.2018 and the certified copy of the said order could be prepared only on 06.04.2018. The Review Application was filed on 23.05.2018, resulting in a delay of 25 days. It has been submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. It is further stated that the applicant is residing at Kanpur and could not contact his counsel within time. It has also been contended that the grievance relates to recovery of gratuity, which gives rise to a recurring cause of action. On these grounds, prayer has been made to condone the delay. Learned counsel for the review applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Surendra Kumar vs. Union of India and Others , Writ-A No. 5564 of 2023, decided on 24.08.2023.

MANISH KUMAR

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the Misc. Application for condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the reasons assigned by the applicant do not constitute sufficient cause. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Narasimha Rao vs. Regional Joint Director of School Education , 2005 (4) SLR 720. He has also relied upon the judgments of this Tribunal in Union of India & Others vs. Surya Bhan Singh & Others, RA No. 109/2015 in OA No. 982/2011, decided on 13.10.2015, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 1997 SC 3277

SRIVASTAVA

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The core issue which arises for consideration is whether the delay of 25 days in filing the present Review Application can be condoned by this Tribunal.

8. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Surendra Kumar (supra) has held that Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone such delay by applying the principles underlying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, provided sufficient cause is shown. The operative portion of aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-

“(46). Accordingly, this Court observes that the judgments of Full Benches of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala are relevant law on the issue. Hence, this Court holds that an application for condonation of delay in Review Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is maintainable and accordingly, it is