Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Union Of India vs Smt. Manju Lochav on 10 October, 2012

      

  

  

 Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench




RA No.396/2011
in
OA No.1173/2010



New Delhi, this the 10th  day of October, 2012


Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A)
Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J)
]

]

	



Union of India, 
Through the Director,
Rural Health Training Centre,
Govt. of India, Ministry of Health, 
Najafgarh, New Delhi.
applicant
(By Advocate : Shri Tanveer Ahmed Ansari)

Versus

Smt. Manju Lochav,
W/o Shri Manjeet,
R/o Village-Bamnoli,
Sector-28, Dwarka,
New Delhi.

respondent
(By Advocate : Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)

	
ORDER (ORAL)

Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) RA No.396/2011 has been filed by the respondent in the OA No.1173/2010. By this RA, review of the Tribunals order dated 15.12.2010 has been prayed. The aforesaid order had been passed on consensual basis.

2. While the Tribunals order was passed on 15.12.2010, the instant RA has been filed on 02.11.2011. This is accompanied by an MA praying for condonation of delay in filing the RA. As the reasons for delay, the following has been submitted :-

2. That the respondent being a Govt. Department has to seek consultation at various channels of Departments and Ministries. In view of this circumstance, the respondent could not file the review Application earlier within the period of one month from the date passing of the order dated 15.10.2010.
3. As per Section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, a period of 30 days has been prescribed as a limit for filing a Review Application. The condonation of delay is not to be done as business usually but only in very exceptional circumstances. The reasons mentioned in the MA are not found to be valid and sufficient enough for condoning delay of about a year in filing the RA. The RA is accordingly dismissed.
 ( Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma )                       ( Dr. Veena Chhotray )  
            Member (J)					   Member (A)
{
rk