CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH M.A 310/00637 of 2025 in &

Diary No. 988 of 2025 (R.A.)

in OA No. 310/00305 of 2024 &

C.P. No. 310/00078 of 2025 in OA No. 310/00305 of 2024 DATED TUESDAY, THE 27^th DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)

HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

1. Union of India Rep. by The Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.

2. Chief Postmaster General Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai-600 002. ...Applicants / Respondents (Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)

Vs.

T. Sakthivel Murugan, Retd SSPOs Erode Division, Residing @ No. 45, B, Sivanandhapuram Street, Saravampatti, Coimbatore -641 035.

….....Respondent/Applicant (Advocate: Mr. M. Mohanarangam )

CAV ON : 21.01.2026

O R D E R

(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

This Miscellaneous Application along with Review Application is filed by the respondents in OA 305 of 2024 stating that they are seeking review of the common order dated 27/01/2025 passed by this Tribunal in O A No. 87, 86, 305, 316, 317, 318, 422, 423 of 2024 by which the said OAs were allowed.

2. It is stated in the Affidavit that this Tribunal's decision granting Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 to applicants after four years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4800 contains legal inconsistencies. The Tribunal omitted to interpret the term "regular service" correctly. Failure to consider the crucial and relevant factors has resulted in passing erroneous order and is liable to be reviewed.

3. It is further stated that after the order under review was received on 14/02/2025, the opinion of their counsel was sought, and he had advised them to prefer Writ Petition. Meanwhile, in a subsequent case, this Tribunal passed the order dated 19/02/2025 dismissing identical claims made by the applicants in OA No.95 of 2024. Therefore, instead of filing Writ Petition, the Review Application has been filed. In the process, there is a delay of 41 days in filing the review application and hence they are seeking condonation of the said delay as well as review of the said order.

4. The MA respondent who was the original applicant in OA 305 of 2024 has filed reply denying the averments made therein. It is stated that the only reason assigned in the affidavit for delay in filing RA is another order being passed by the Tribunal in another OA and certain procedural formalities and no other reason is assigned for the delay. In the case of State of West Bengal and others vs Kamal Sengupta [(2008) 8 SCC 612], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an order cannot be reviewed on the basis of subsequent decision/ judgment of coordinate larger bench or a superior court.

5. Further, Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 provides that "No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed". Hence, the review application filed after 30 days is not maintainable in terms of the said Rule 17. Therefore, MA for condonation of delay of 41 days is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have heard the arguments of both the learned counsels.

7. Learned counsel for MA applicants contended that the power of review is provided in section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 read with rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Therefore, this Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing RA and has relied on the following decisions in support of his argument that this Tribunal is vested with the powers to condone the delay, namely: -

“(1) Full Bench decision of the High Court of Calcutta dated 08.10.2002 passed in Union of India & Ors vs Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr.;

(2) Full Bench decision of the High Court of Orissa dated 3/2/2015 passed in Akshaya Kumar Parida Dead Anr vs Union Of India & Others.;

(3) Full Bench decision of the High Court of Kerala in Haris K.M Vs. Jahfar (2020 SCC Online Kerala 4009);

(4)