Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH:
NEW DELHI
R.A. No.263 of 2018
M.A.No.5321 of 2018
in
O.A. No.3428 of 2017
This the 21st day December 2018
Hon’ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
Shri Dhirinder Singh Age – 59 years
S/o Sh. Prem Singh Group - D Ex-Trackman
Under Sr. Section Engineer
North Central Railway
Hathras
R/o V&PO : Jaimai
Distt.: Ferozabad (UP)
Pushpinder
S/o Shri Dhirinder Singh
R/o V&PO :Jaimai
Distt.: Ferozabad (UP)
....Review Applicants
Versus
Union of India : Through
1. Secretary
Railway Board
Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. General Manager
North Central Railway
Allahabad.
3. Divisional Railway Manager
North Central Railway
Allahabad
....Review Respondents
O R D E R (In Circulation)
MA No.5321/2018 & RA 263/2018
2
The said MA has been filed by the review applicants
seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Application,
vide which the review applicants are seeking to review the
Order passed on 21.8.2018 passed in OA 3428/2017, and
sought condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the Review
Application. The instant MA as well as RA was filed on
29.11.2018.
2. As per the provisions of Section 22(3)(f) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the review has to be filed
within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order
sought to be reviewed. The review applicants have pleaded in
the instant MA that delay in finalizing the review application
was on account of sickness of the applicant, who was
suffering from Typhoid fever and was under the treatment of
Dr. Agrawal. However, this Court finds that the Order under
Review was of 21.8.2018 and the Review Application along
with this MA has been filed on 29.11.2018 and as such there
is certainly delay of more than 55 days in filing the Review
Application, but taking a lenient view, this Court allows the
present MA. Accordingly, the delay in filing the Review
Application is condoned.
3. This Court perused the said Order under Review as well
as Review Application. The grounds taken in the present
Review Application are not based on any error apparent on
3
the face of record. In fact, the review applicants are
questioning the conclusion arrived at by this Bench in the
said Order. If this Court agrees to their prayer, this Court
would be going into the merits of the case again and re-
writing another judgment of the same case. By doing so, this
Court would be acting as an appellate authority, which is not
permissible in review. In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar
Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, [AIR 1979 SC 1047],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, there is nothing in
Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court
from exercising the power of review which is inherent in
every
Court
of
plenary
jurisdiction
to
prevent
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to
the exercise of the power of review. The power of review
may be exercised on the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of the person
seeking the review or could not be produced by him at
the time when the order was made; it may be exercised
where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found; it may also be exercised on any
analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That
would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of
review is not to be confused with appellate power which
may enable an Appellate Court to correct all matters or
errors committed by the Subordinate Court."
Again in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa
and others, 1999 (9) SCC 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed as follows:-
