CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH M.A.No.594/2025 in RA No. 28/2025 in OA No.756/2019 Dated, the 8^th day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON’BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)

&

HON’BLE MR.SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)

1. Union of India rep by The Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

2. The Director General, General Public Works Department (CPWD), Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi

3. The Special Director General CPWD, Rajaji Bhawan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. … Applicants By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC Vs G. Santhanakrishnan @ G.S. Krishnan Executive Engineer (Retired), No.207, MIG, LH1, Ambedkar Street, Maraimalainagar, Kancheepuram District. … Respondents By Advocate Dr. P. S. Vijayakumar ORDER BY CIRCULATION (Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.Swaminathan, Member(J))

The respondents in OA No.756/2019 have filed MA 594/2025 to condone the delay of 140 days in filing the Review Application and the unnumbered Review application is filed by the respondents in the OA under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and is dealt with under Section 22(3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

2. As no hearing is considered necessary, the Review Application is being disposed of under circulation as per Rule 17(3) of the C.A.T.

(Procedure) Rules.

3. It is to be noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati, vide order, dated 27.03.2023, in WP(C) No.3034/2021, in the matter of the Union of India & Ors Vs. Chanchal Nag, has dealt with the issue of condonation of delay in filing of RA by the Tribunal and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:

“6. The foundation of challenge to the impugned order, as urged by Mr. Keyal, learned counsel representing the Union of India was based on the two judgments (supra) of the Calcatta High Court. Suffice it to say that in the first Full Bench judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal (supra) the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of K. Ajit Babu (supra) and S.S. Rathore (supra) were not considered. As the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of S.S. Rathore (supra) has categorically laid down that the civil court’s jurisdiction has been taken away by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the view to the contrary taken by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal (supra) cannot be held as laying down a correct proposition of law.

7. Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987 provides an express bar against entertainment of a Review Application unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed. By holding that this limitation of 30 days is not mandatory and can be extended by resorting to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court virtually declared the statutory provision to be ultra vires. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is a special law. Section 21(1) of the Act of 1985 prescribes limitations for filing of the original applications, which is one year for making the application. The power of condonation of delay for a period not exceeding six months to entertain the original application has been vested with the Tribunal under Sub-Section (3)

of Section 21.

8. As stated above, the limitation for filing a review application is 30 days, as provided for in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987. Thus, the Act of 1985 lays down specific provisions with regard to limitation as well as the power for condonation thereof. Hence, the proceedings under the Act of 1985 cannot be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, which is a general law governing issues of limitation arising in proceedings before Courts. This view is further fortified when we consider the ratio of the judgments relied up