ORDER (In Circulation)

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):

The instant RA has been filed by the Review Applicant under Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 read with section 19 and Section 22 (3) (f)of CAT Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-

“1. To review the judgment and order dated 18.12.2025 passed in O.A No. 1522/2024 and hear the original application.

2. To pass any other and further orders which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The operating part of our order dated 18.12.2025 for which review is sought reads as follows :-

“6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused all the relevant documents on record including the written synopsis filed by the applicants. We have also perused the rulings of Hon’ble High Courts and Apex Court cited by both the parties.

7. We have observed that the respondents after consultation with Department of Legal Affairs convened a review DPC meeting on 18.09.2018 wherein the applicants’ cases were also considered for promotion and the Director’s Select List was published on 27.09.2018. However, unfortunately since the applicants (who were in the zone of consideration) had retired by 27.09.2018; hence they were not given the promotion in terms of DoPT OM dated 12.10.1998. Though the respondent admitted that there was delay in preparation of the Select List of Directors however, this was not due to any prejudice or malicious/mala fide mens rea. The delay was due to the arduous and cumbersome procedure of collecting vigilance status and other service particulars of around 95 officers from a large number of Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India. We are of the considered opinion that therefore the delay in convening the DPC was a bona fide reason and not a mala fide reason. Further, as per the ratio given in Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in Govt. of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others (supra), it is now a settled principle in administrative law and service jurisprudence that promotions cannot be accorded to a Government servant after retirement for posts on which the retired Government servant had never worked during his service career.

8. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA lies with the respondent. The OA being devoid of merit; deserves to dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

9. It goes without saying that the view taken in the present OA would also be applicable to the OA No. 1522/2024 and accordingly the same is also dismissed. MAs if any are also disposed of in similar manner. However, there will be no order as to costs.”

The Review petitioner has stated in his RA that the order passed in the OA suffers from patent errors apparent on the face of it whereby the following records available on record were ignored resulting in miscarriage of justice :-

“Though the respondent admitted that there was or delay in preparation of the Select List of Directors however, this was not due to any prejudice malicious/ malafide / mens rea. The delay was due to arduous and cumbersome procedure of collecting vigilance status and other service particulars of around 95 officers from a large number of Ministries/ Departments of Govt. of India. We are of the considered opinion that therefore the delay in convening the DPC was a bona fide reason and not a mala fide reason."

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the issues raised in the RA and are of the considered opinion that there has been no miscarriage of justice or travesty of law so as to warrant exercise of review jurisdiction. We have observed that neither any new points of facts nor any new points of law have been brought in the review petition which were not brought out earlier. We have noted that our decision in OA No. 1522/2024 vide our order dated 18.12.2025 was based on our fact finding and there appears no err