Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dinesh Kumar Soni vs Technical Education Chandigarh on 30 June, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.60/25/2025 IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.60/813/2023
DATED THIS THE
(BY CIRCULATION)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Dinesh Kumar Soni, age 51 years S/o Sh. Johri Mal Soni
Resident of H. No 1359, Sector 28B, Chandigarh 160002
Aadhar Card No 7186 3978 1161
2. Dr. Manoj Sharma, age 52 years s/o Raj Kumar Sharma
Resident of H. No 707/1 Sector 41A, Chandigarh 160036
Aadhar Card No 3999 4988 1166
3. Jagjeet Singh age 51 years s/o Sh Inder Singh Resident
of H. No 398, Mangalpur, Mangalpur Part 1, Karnal, Tikri
Haryana 132001, Aadhar Card No: 5669 0180 4314
4. . Praveen Kumar son of Shri Kashmiri Lal, aged 56 years,
Resident og H. No 563, Sector 10, Ambala City, Ambala,
Haryana. Aadhar Card No 373600508815
5. Charnjeet Singh S/o age 51 years Sh. Maha Singh Sidhu,
Resident of E-11, CCET Campus, Sector 26, Chandigarh
160019 Aadhar Card No 4528 0652 253
DINKY 2025.06.30
BANSAL 15:18:40+05'30'
2
6. Ishminder Kaur age 55 years d/o Sh Gurdeep Singh,
Resident of H. No 3902, Sector 22 D, Chandigarh 160022
Aadhar Card No 3908 2159 1305
7. Randhir Singh age 48 years s/o Sh Jagir Ram Resident of
H. No C-14, CCET Campus, Sector 26 Chandigarh 160019
Aadhar Crad No 6432 7226 9955
8. Sivasankara Rao Meda, age 48 years s/o Sh
Venkateswarlu, Resident of E-4, Central Polytechnic,
Sector 19, Chandigarh 160019. Aadhar Card No 4184
7205 7499
9. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, age 48 years S/o Sh. Jaswant
Kumar, Resident of H. No D-13, CCET Campus, Sector 26,
Chandigarh 160019 Aadhar Card No 8968 5829 0330
10. Dr Rajesh Kumar, age approx. 50 years S/o Sh Mela
Ram, Resident of H. No E-6. CCET Campus, Sector 26,
Chandigarh 160019 Aadhar Card No 9165 4177 5556
11. G. H. Hugar age 57 years, s/o Sh. Honnappa, Н. No
945, Near Arya Samaj, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh 160019
Aadhar Card No 8721 6143 3362
12. L. R. Sahu age 51 years s/o Sh Parshuran Sahu,
Resident of H. No 942, Sector 7, Chandigarh, DL No CH01
20160014351
DINKY 2025.06.30
BANSAL 15:18:40+05'30'
3
13. Dr Jaswanti aged 51 years w/o Sh Rajinder Pal
Dhiman, Resident of H. No 3203Sector 28-D, Chandigarh
Aadhar Crd No 2505 6980 6165.
(BY ADVOCATE: SH. RAJBIR SINGH KADIAN)
Versus
1. Secretary, Technical Education, Chandigarh
Administration, Deluxe Building, Sector-9, Chandigarh-
160009. (Mail ID: [email protected]).
2. Director, Technical Education Department, Sector 12,
PEC Campus, Chandigarh-160011. (Mail ID: secy-
[email protected]).
3. Joint Director Administration, Technical Education,
Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology
(Degree Wing), Sector 26, Chandigarh 160019 (Ε.Mail:
[email protected])
4. Section Officer, Directorate of Technical Education
Department, Sector 12, PEC Campus, Chandigarh-
160011. (Mail ID: [email protected]).
Respondents
ORDER
Per: MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA MEMBER (A):
1. This Review Application has been filed under Rule 22(3) (f) read with rule 24 of CAT Procedure Rules, 1987 DINKY 2025.06.30 BANSAL 15:18:40+05'30' 4 seeking review of order dated 18.03.2025 passed in OA 060/813/2023. Along with the Review Application, the review applicants have filed a Misc. Application No. 1449/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the Review Application. The operative portion of the order dated 18.03.2025 reads as follows :
1. From the perusal of above, it clearly indicates that the relief claimed by applicants is not tenable and it is not applicable to regular teaching staff.
2. In view of aforesaid, Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology Diploma Wing is advised to send Honorarium as per FR 46(11) as asked by the respondents within a period of four weeks, if it has not been sent yet. It is of the considered view that the stand taken by respondents is under the Rules.
3. Accordingly, the OA filed in this case is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed."
2. The review applicants have averred that despite the absence of applicants' counsel, the Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the OA on merit. From the perusal of order under Review it is found that the case was disposed of in terms of Rule 15 and 16 of CAT Procedure Rules, 1987 only after providing last opportunity to both the parties on 13.02.2025. In compliance of order dated 13.02.2025 DINKY 2025.06.30 BANSAL 15:18:40+05'30' 5 passed by this Tribunal, when there was no representation on behalf of both the parties, the matter was finally decided on 18.03.2025. The order dated 18.03.2025 has been passed after perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties on file and the judgements relied upon by the applicant and further, the issues vide which this RA has been filed, have already been considered while deciding the OA. No new ground has been taken up to review the order dated 18.03.2025. It has been observed that this RA has been filed after the expiry of limitation period and there is delay of four days.
3. The Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 prescribes the procedure for filing the Review Application which reads as under:-
"No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order sought to be reviewed."
From the reading of the aforesaid, it is clear that the period to file Review Application would commence from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed. In this case, there is delay of four days in filing Review Application. With reference to above provisions, the delay in filing the Review Application cannot be condoned and accordingly, this MA is hereby rejected.
DINKY 2025.06.30
BANSAL 15:18:40+05'30'
6
4. Further, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Chanchal Nag (supra) held that the Tribunal shall have no power to condone the delay unless expressly conferred the power by the statute creating it. It has been held as under:-
"8. As stated above, the limitation for filing a review application is 30 days, as provided 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 upon by Dr. Sharma in the cases of International Asset (supra) and Sakuru (supra), wherein it has been stipulated that the proceedings before a statutory Tribunal cannot be placed at par with proceedings before a court. The Tribunal shall have no power to condone the delay unless expresssly conferred the power by the statute creating it. As Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987 expressly provides timeline of 30 days for entertaining a review application, unless the statutory provision is declared to be ultra vires such power cannot be read to the statute by a judicial pronouncement.
9. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal was justified in holding that it has no power to condone the delay and entertain the review application beyond a period of 30 days. Thus, the rejection of the Misc. Application No.149/2019, filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of the gross and inordinate delay of 768 days in filing the Review Application by the impugned order dated 08.06.2020, does not call for any interference in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As we have decided this issue in favour of the respondent, the second limb of argument advanced by Dr. Sharma is left open for consideration."
DINKY 2025.06.30
BANSAL 15:18:40+05'30'
7
9. Thus, in view of the aforementioned judicial
pronouncements this Tribunal is of the opinion that no new ground is made out in filing Review Application. Further, the delay in filing the Review Application cannot be condoned, as the Tribunals are empowered to entertain the Review Application only if the same is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, as per Rule 17 of the C.Α.Τ. (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
10. In view of the aforementioned reasons, Misc.
Application No. 1449/2025 along with the Review Application No. 25/2025 is hereby dismissed.
11. No costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA)
MEMBER (A)
/db/
DINKY 2025.06.30
BANSAL 15:18:40+05'30'