The court affirmed that inordinate delay in seeking relief undermines the ability to obtain reconsideration, emphasizing adherence to strict standards for review under CPC.

ORDER

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

The present Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 12.09.2025 in O.P. (CAT) No. 101/2025, whereby the Original Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 180/0096/2024 seeking a direction to the respondents to re-fix their pay in the scale of Rs. 330–480 for the period of the Third Pay Revision and to grant consequential revision of pay for the periods covered by subsequent pay revision orders, along with other consequential reliefs.

2.1 The petitioners approached the Tribunal with a delay of14,528 days. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application as time- barred. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed an Original Petition before this Court, which was also dismissed on the ground that the delay was inordinate and huge. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Review Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the Courts failed to consider the fact that it was only during 2024–25 that the petitioners came to know that the Department had finally implemented Annexure-A5 and extended the upgraded scale to other similarly situated Refrigerator Mechanics pursuant to the orders passed in O.A. No. 378/2023. This would clearly indicate that the order passed in the year 1983 was implemented only during 2024–25. Therefore, there is no question of delay, as the petitioners are similarly situated persons and are entitled to the same relief.

3.1 It is further contended that both the Courts failed to consider that the matter involves a continuing cause of action. Immediately upon knowing of the implementation, the petitioners approached the learned Tribunal, explaining the continuous representations made by them and the recent discovery of such implementation. However, both the Courts rejected the prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioners had not satisfactorily explained the delay.

3.2 In view of the above, it is submitted that this Review Petition deserves to be allowed, the judgment passed in the Original Petition is liable to be recalled, and thereafter, by condoning the delay, the matter may be decided on merits.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Tribunal as well as this Court had rightly come to the conclusion that there was a huge and inordinate delay and had dismissed the petitions accordingly. Even in the application seeking condonation of delay, the petitioners were unable to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay. Therefore, no grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are made out. Hence, it is submitted that the Review Petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , which is the substantive provision governing the power of review, provides as follows:

“ Section 114

Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;

(b) by a decree