Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
P M Pandi vs Central Silk Board on 8 April, 2026
1
R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.23/2025
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOs.170/00293/2024 &
170/00610/2024
Order reserved on : 27.03.2026
Date of Order: 08.04.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. Shri. P.M. Pandi, 62 years,
Deputy Director (Insp) (Retd)
Central Silk Board,
Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India,
Bangalore-560068.
Presently residing at, #10, Lakshmipuram Street,
C. N. Village, TIRUNELVELI Junction-627 001.
Tamil Nadu.
2. Shri. Ranganatha M.C.,62 years
Asst. Superintendent (Admn) (Retd)
Central Silk Board, MoT, Govt of India,
Bangalore-560068.
Presently residing at, #1720/1820, Near SRS Mill,
Opp: Canara Bank, Kalyagate, Magadi,
Ramanagara Dist-562 120. ...Review applicants
(By Advocate Shri.Sampangi Ramaiah)
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.04.09
17:26:50+05'30'
2
R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
Vs.
1. The Joint Secretary (Silk),
Ministry of Textiles, Government of India,
NEW DELHI-110 011.
2. The Member Secretary,
Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles,
GOI, Madiwala, Hosur Road, BANGALORE-560068
3. The Director [Finance], Central Silk Board,
Government of India, Ministry of Textiles,
Madiwala, Hosur Road,
BENGALURU - 560 068. ...Review respondents
(By Advocate Shri.N.Amaresh)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Review Application has been filed by the applicants in the Original Application Nos.170/00293/2024 and 170/00610/2024 against the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A Nos.170/00293/2024 and 170/00610/2024 dated 26.9.2025 under section 22(3)(f) of CAT Act R/W Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1985. This Review Application has been filed on 24.10.2025 on the following grounds:
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 75 has held that the Review SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.04.09 17:26:50+05'30' 3 R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Application is maintainable on the following grounds:
i. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
ii. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
iii. Any other sufficient reason.
It is submitted that the judgments as produced herein vide Annexure-R3 to 5,& R7 to R10 are discovery of new and important matter/evidence which, after the exercise ofdue diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner and could not be produced with the original applications.
Hence, it is prayed that a decision may be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Central Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985' based on the above said rulings and various situations/grounds as described herein above."
2. Notices were issued.
3. No reply statement has been filed by the review respondents.
4. The case came up for final hearing on 27.3.2026. Shri.Sampangi Ramaiah for the review applicants and Shri.N.Amaresh for the review respondents were present and heard.
5. We have gone through the entire records and considered the SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.04.09 17:26:50+05'30' 4 R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE rival contentions.
6. In the grounds, the review applicants mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others, 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 75 has held that the Review Application is maintainable on the grounds of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and any other sufficient reason.
7. The review applicants further submitted that the judgments as produced herein vide Annexures R3 to R5 and Annexures R7 to R10 are discoveries of new and important matter/evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioners and could not be produced with the Original Applications. But it is not explained in what way Annexures R3 to R5 and Annexures R7 to R10 are in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others qualify as discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him as these are citations and not any SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.04.09 17:26:50+05'30' 5 R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE evidence. Further in terms of the 2nd paragraph "Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" is not evident from Annexure R3 to 5 and Annexures R7 to R 10 and the applicants could not shows us any such mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or substantiate any other sufficient reason except by saying that these citations support his case.
8. The respondent's counsel, Shri.N. Amaresh, argued vehemently that additional citations are not a reason for reviewing the order. Further, he pointed out that these citations are in no way controvert the decision of the Tribunal in O.A No.293/2024 dated 26.09.2025 in which the O.A is dismissed based on the applicability of the Hon'ble apex court ruling in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh on 29.07.2016 reported in 2016 14 SCC
267. He emphasizes that none of these citations are either in the nature of exception to the said case or which can in any way take precedence over the said Hon'ble apex court order as the facts of these cases are not the same where at the time of fixation of pay an undertaking was given by the applicants that in the event of pay having been fixed in a manner contrary to the provisions contained in these Rules, as detected subsequently, any excess payment so made shall be refunded SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.04.09 17:26:50+05'30' 6 R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE by them to the Government either by adjustment against future payments due to them or otherwise. Once such an undertaking was given, the respondents argue that then squarely the case comes under the exception to the State of Punjab and Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. in CA No.11527 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.11684 of 2012) on 18th December 2014 reported in ((2015) 4 SCC 334 and it comes in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh on 29.07.2016 reported in 2016 14 SCC 267.
9. On asking how these citations overruled the said apex court order dated 29.07.2016 (2016 (14) SCC 267), the review applicants could not show any of the citations with the facts which matched with the facts in the R. A or in any way the said citations overcame the ruling of the apex court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh on 29.07.2016 reported in 2016 14 SCC 267 based on which the impugned decision was taken.
10. The following citations have been produced by the review applicants:
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.04.09 17:26:50+05'30' 7 R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "i. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P© 13002/2018 in the case of Dr.Shashi Vashisht v. Union of India and Others on 26.09.2023.
ii. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPS No.1356 of 2023 in the case of Gopal Prasad Naik v. State of Chhattisgarh and another on 22.08.2025.
iii. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPS No.6218 of 2023 and other connected matters on 26.11.2024 in the case of N.N.Dwivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others.
iv. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition No.38110 of 2024 dated 13th May 2024 in the case of Nandkishore Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
v. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench in O.A No.332/0011/2022 dated 27.09.2022 in the case of Anand Kumar v. Union of India and Others.
vi. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A No.170/00439/2023 dated 03.10.2024 in the case of Ravi Kumar v. Union of India and Others.
vii. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A No.170/00278/2024 dated 25.07.2025 in the case of Shri.Devender Singh Dahiya v.The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board and others.
viii. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A No.170/768- 810/2018 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of M.K.Srinivas and Others v. Union of India and Others.
SHAINEY VIJU SHAINE CAT BANGALORE Y VIJU 2026.04.09 17:26:50+05'30' 8 R.A.No.170/23/2025/CAT/BANGALORE ix. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 16th day of March 2021 in the case of Member Secretary and others v. Shri.M.K.Srinivas and others in Writ Petition No.3422/2021 (S-CAT)."
11. The applicants failed to show if these orders in any way could overcome the ruling of Hon'ble apex court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh on 29.07.2016 reported in 2016 14 SCC 267 as their facts are different. Hence, these rulings do not help in any way in the Review Application. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order in the O.A and the Review Application is without merit. Hence, we pass the following orders:
The Review Application is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/sv/
SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINE CAT BANGALORE
Y VIJU 2026.04.09
17:26:50+05'30'