CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU REVIEW APPLICATION NO.170/00001/2026 & M.A 170/00021/2026 IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00240/2021 Order Reserved on: 16.2.2026 Date of Order: 09.03.2026 CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

HON’BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)

Dr.M.Rajesh S/o.Shri.B.G.Mohan Aged about 53 years, R/o 193, 10^th Cross William Town, Bangalore-560 046 …Review applicant (By Advocate Shri.T.C.Gupta)

Vs.

1. Union of India, through the Secretary & Chairman Ministry of Defence, Defence Research & Development Organisation, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110 011

2. Director, Ministry of Defence Defence Research & Development Organization, DRDO Bhawan Rajaji Marg New Delhi – 110 011

3. Director, Ministry of Defence DR&DO, ARDE, Armament Post Pashan, Pune – 411 021 …Review respondents

O R D E R

PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

1. This Review Application has been filed against the order in O.A 170/00240/2021 dated 3^rd January 2025 of this Tribunal. This Review Application has been filed on 06.01.2026 after the expiry of almost one year. The Review Applicants have filed a Miscellaneous Application No.170/00021/2026 for condoning the delay wherein he prays that the delay may be condoned and this Review Application may be allowed.

2. The reason assigned in the Miscellaneous Application mentions at paragraph 2 that the applicant was living in Japan and came to India on 07.12.2025. After coming to India, the earlier counsel refused to take any action in the matter and the applicant contacted the new counsel, who was ill at that time. Now the new counsel has recovered and on his advice the applicant has filed present R.A. Copy of the passport is also enclosed. Therefore, the applicant prays for condoning the delay of about 11 months in filing the R.A.

3. Admittedly, the present Review Application is filed beyond 30 days with a delay condonation application under Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which states as under:-

“17. Application for review – (1) No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed.”

Hence, the Review Application filed beyond 30 days will not be maintainable in terms of the aforesaid Rule 17.

4. In the case of K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India – 1997 (6) SCC 473 (Para 4), while examining the provisions of Section 22(3)(f) of the AT Act and the Rule 17(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules and also order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the right of review is available to the aggrieved person on restricted ground as mentioned in the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation. The matter of condonation of delay in such cases also came before the Full Bench of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Narasimha Rao Vs. Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal and others – 2005(4) SLR 720 and it was held that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay under the Limitation Act. In this case, this Review Application was filed on 6.1.2026 impugning the order dated 03.01.2025 of this Tribunal.

5. It is clearly seen that there is delay of more than eleven months and as per the M.A No.170/00021 of 2026, delay in filing this Review Application is explained as the applicant was living in Japan, earlier counsel refused to take any action in the matter and new counsel was ill etc., which are not a valid reason for accepting the said M.A for condonation of delay. Such reasons cannot be accepted to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application No.170/00021/2026 for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application is liable to be dismissed.

6. Regarding merits, the review of the order of this Tribunal is done under the section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with provisions of the rule 1 Order 47 of the CPC which states as under: -

“1. Application for review of judg