CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK [Arising out of MA 260/0005/2025 (OA 676/2024) disposed of on 08.09.2025]

DATED: 10.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J) THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)

Gangadhar Pati..….…Review Applicant VERSUS Union of India & Ors ….…Review Respondents For the applicant : Mr. S.K.Mishra, Counsel For the respondents:…..

O R D E R [Circulation]

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

It is well known in law that litigant who sleep over his rights shall not get favour of the Court, which explained in the maxim "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt", which means "The law assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights," aptly applies in the present case, as the petitioner has failed to act diligently and vigilantly in pursuing their legal remedies in time. This Bench vide order dated

08.09.2025 dismissed the Original Application No. 676/2024, filed by the applicant, on the ground of delay and laches. The applicant has filed this RA on 17.10.2025 seeking review of the above order nor on the ground of any error apparent on the face of record but on the ground but on the ground that the dismissal of the OA on delay and laches is not justified.

2. The exercise of the power of review by the court/tribunal is exceptional and can be exercised only when it is established that there has been error apparent on record. The grounds urged by the petitioner to seek review of the order of this Bench dated 08.09.2025 is not covered under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the grounds based on which the petitioner has sought to review the order is liable to be dismissed is well fortified by the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SC 224, Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.), (2006) 4 SCC 78, State of Haryana Vs. M.P. Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457, State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Union of India and others-vs- Banani Das in RVWPET No.221 of 2025 dated 19.09.2025. Hence, this RA is dismissed and the MA is accordingly disposed of.

3. Copy of this order be given to both sides and uploaded in the official website.

(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)

Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)

RK/PS