Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Deptt Of Posts vs Purshotam Dass Sharma on 17 November, 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
MA No. 4935/2025
In
RA No. 177/2025
In
OA No. 4477/2024
New Delhi, this the 17th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Department of Post
Dak Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001
2. Chief Post Master General
Department of Posts
Meghdoot Bhawan
New Delhi 110001
3. Director Postal Service
Department of Posts, Meghdoot Bhawan
New Delhi-110001
4. Chief Pot Master
Delhi GPO
Delhi-110006
5. Sr. Supdt of Post Office
Department of Posts
Civil Lines, Delhi-110054.
... Applicant
Versus
1. Sh. Purshotam Dass Sharma
Aged about 66 years
S/o late H.L. Sharma
R/o C-9, Rana Pratap Bagh
New Delhi-110007
(Retired as Dy. Post Master, HSG-II, Group C)
Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA
SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.11.28
10:43:34+05'30'
2 RA No. 177/2025 in
OA No. 4477/2024
2. Sh. Suresh Nath Pandey
Aged about 61 years
S/o late Rameshwar Pandey
R/o House No. 58, Urvashi Enclave
Near Vardan Hospital
Raj Nagar Extension Meerut Road, Ghaziabad
(Retired as Postal Assistant, Group C)
3. Mrs. Rakesh Kumari
Aged about 61 years
W/o Sh. Kuldeep Kumar
R/o C-302, DDA Flats East of Loni Road
Shahdara, Delhi-110093
(Retired as Asstt. Post Master, Group C)
4. Sh. Ashok Kumar Tyagi
Aged about 60 years
S/o late Braham Prakash
R/o Post Master Residence
Civil Line, Delhi-110054
(Retired as APM, Group C)
5. Sh. Mahendra Pratap
Aged about 61 years
S/o Sh. Prem Raj
R/o House no. 95, Ghitorni Pahari Enclave
New Delhi-110030
(Retired as AMP, Civil Lines PO, Group C)
... Respondents
Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA
SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.11.28
10:43:34+05'30'
3 RA No. 177/2025 in
OA No. 4477/2024
O R D E R (By Circulation)
Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):
The instant Review Application (RA) has been filed by the respondents in OA No. 4477/2024 under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, thereby seeking review of order dated 23.07.2025 passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA, inter alia, on the following grounds:
i) the order of the Tribunal in the aforesaid OA is erroneous inasmuch as the order under review has not taken into consideration the provisions of the RTP Scheme issued by the review applicants and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & Ors. Etc. Etc. v.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Etc. Etc., [1989 SCR Supp. (2) 329=1990 SCC Supp.113], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the demand of RTP employees for being placed at par with regular, permanent or temporary employees in the matter of service conditions, Union of India & Ors. V. K.N. Sivadas, AIR 1990 SC 3100 and State of Uttranchal & Anr. V. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., (CA No.7328-7329 of 2013 decided on 23.08.2013).
Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 4 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024
ii) The decision of the Tribunal granting consequential benefits of service rendered by the original applicants before the date of their absorption in PA cadre needs to be reviewed because the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already examined the question and settled it against the similarly situated persons in the matter of Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra).
iii) The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that when the matter had already been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been conclusively decided, raising the same question again before the Tribunal was barred by the principle of res judicata in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, [(1990) 2 SCC 715].
iv) The Tribunal after taking note of the RTP Scheme, has not found anything unconstitutional. The right of all the persons governed by the scheme shall be strictly as per the provisions of the scheme and cannot be changed in any way by this Tribunal in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3117/2009 decided on 10.05.2023.
Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 5 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024
v) The Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in CT No.135/1999 in OA No.795/1997 vide order dated 02.03.2000, examined the impact of the non-admission of the SLP against the order of the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal passed in TA No.82/86 and the impact of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in K.N. Sivadas (supra).
vi) The order of the Tribunal is to be reviewed in the light of the recent decision passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.1373/2021, decided on 04.11.2024 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has examined the provisions of the RTP Scheme in detail and the impact of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.N. Sivadas (supra) and held that the benefit prior to the date of absorption cannot be provided to the employees.
vii) The order of the Tribunal is required to be reviewed in terms of the decision of the Tribunal in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. V. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., Civil Appeal No.9849 of 2014, for extending the benefit to the similarly placed persons, which is erroneous and based on obiter dicta and ignored the ratio decidendi of the case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denied to provide relief to similarly situated persons on the ground of delay and latches.
Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 6 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024
viii) The order of the Tribunal under review is required to be reviewed as the Tribunal did not examine the limitation period of the cause of action which arose almost 30 years back. Hence, the OA itself was not maintainable under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
ix) The order of the Tribunal is further required to be reviewed in the light of the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.514/2020, wherein the Tribunal has rejected the claim of similarly placed applicants as time barred.
x) The order of the Tribunal under review is bad in law because the Hon'ble High Court of Telengana while deciding the Writ Petition No.17400/2016 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.779-780 of 2013, has not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor and K.N. Sivadas (supra). The original applicants and other similarly situated persons in spite of conclusive pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jagrit Mazdoor and K.N. Sivadas (supra) as well as the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in MA No.236/2001. 304/2001 and CP No.135/1999 in OA No.795/1997, have kept the litigation open by Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 7 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024 agitating the facts of the case in a distorted manner and now this chain of litigation needs to be brought to an end, since the matter is already covered by various judicial pronouncements by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal.
2. The review applicants have also filed MA No. 4935/2025 for condonation of delay of 03 days in filing the instant RA.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the MA, delay is condoned and the MA is allowed.
4. Recently, this Tribunal in an identical case being RA No. 146/2025 in OA No. 2634/2019 titled Sangeeta Kaushik vs. Union of India & Ors. vide order/judgment dated 29.08.2025, dismissed the said RA in circulation, as found devoid of merit. Similar grounds as raised in the present RA were also raised in the aforesaid RA seeking review of the common order dated 16.12.2024. Such order dated 29.08.2025 is reproduced below for clarity:
"The instant Review Application (RA) has been filed by the respondents in OA No.2634/2019 under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, thereby seeking review of order dated 16.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA, inter alia, on the following grounds:
i) the order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2024 in the aforesaid OA as well as OA No.197/2020 is Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 8 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024 erroneous inasmuch as the order under review has not taken into consideration the provisions of the RTP Scheme issued by the review applicants and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Etc. Etc., [1989 SCR Supp. (2) 329=1990 SCC Supp.113], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the demand of RTP employees for being placed at par with regular, permanent or temporary employees in the matter of service conditions, Union of India & Ors. V. K.N. Sivadas, AIR 1990 SC 3100 and State of Uttranchal & Anr.
V. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., (CA No.7328-7329 of 2013 decided on 23.08.2013).
ii) The decision of the Tribunal granting consequential benefits of service rendered by the original applicants before the date of their absorption in PA cadre needs to be reviewed because the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already examined the question and settled it against the similarly situated persons in the matter of Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra).
iii) The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that when the matter had already been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been conclusively decided, raising the same question again before the Tribunal was barred by the principle of res judicata in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, [(1990) 2 SCC 715]. Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 9 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024
iv) The Tribunal after taking note of the RTP Scheme, as contained in para-3 of the impugned order, has not found anything unconstitutional. The right of all the persons governed by the scheme shall be strictly as per the provisions of the scheme and cannot be changed in any way by this Tribunal in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3117/2009 decided on 10.05.2023.
v) The Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in CT No.135/1999 in OA No.795/1997 vide order dated 02.03.2000, examined the impact of the non-admission of the SLP against the order of the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal passed in TA No.82/86 and the impact of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in K.N. Sivadas (supra).
vi) The order of the Tribunal is to be reviewed in the light of the recent decision passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.1373/2021, decided on 04.11.2024 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has examined the provisions of the RTP Scheme in detail and the impact of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.N. Sivadas (supra) and held that the benefit prior to the date of absorption cannot be provided to the employees.
vii) The order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2024 is required to be reviewed in terms of the decision of the Tribunal in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. V. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., Civil Appeal No.9849 of 2014, for extending the benefit to the similarly placed persons, which is erroneous and based on obiter dicta and ignored the ratio decided of the case as the Hon'ble Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 10 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024 Supreme Court has denied to provide relief to similarly situated persons on the ground of delay and latches.
viii) The order of the Tribunal under review is required to be reviewed as the Tribunal did not examine the limitation period of the cause of action which arose almost 30 years back. Hence, the OA itself was not maintainable under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
ix) The order of the Tribunal is further required to be reviewed in the light of the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.514/2020, wherein the Tribunal has rejected the claim of similarly placed applicants as time barred.
x) The order of the Tribunal under review is bad in law because the Hon'ble High Court of Telengana while deciding the Writ Petition No.17400/2016 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.779-780 of 2013, has not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor and K.N. Sivadas (supra). The original applicants and other similarly situated persons in spite of conclusive pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jagrit Mazdoor and K.N. Sivadas (supra) as well as the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in MA No.236/2001. 304/2001 and CP No.135/1999 in OA No.795/1997, have kept the litigation open by agitating the facts of the case in a distorted manner and now this chain of litigation needs to be brought to an end, since the matter is already covered by various judicial pronouncements by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal. Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 11 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024
2. The review applicants have also filed MA No. 3570/2025 for condonation of delay of 180 days in filing the instant RA.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the MA, delay is condoned and the MA is allowed.
4. The captioned OA No. 2634/2019 was allowed by this Tribunal on 16.12.2024 along with OA No. 2569/2019 by passing a common order. The respondents in the connected OA No. 2569/2019 filed a Review Application No. 91/2025 on similar grounds as raised in the present RA seeking review of the common order dated 16.12.2024 which was dismissed, in circulation, as found devoid of merit vide order dated 27.05.2025. The order dated 27.05.2025 in Review Application No. 91/2025 in OA No. 2569/2019 is reproduced below for clarity:
"The instant Review Application (RA) has been filed by the respondents in OA No.2569/2019 under Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, thereby seeking review of order dated 16.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid OA, inter alia, on the following grounds:
i) the order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2024 in the aforesaid OA as well as OA No.197/2020 is erroneous inasmuch as the order under review has not taken into consideration the provisions of the RTP Scheme issued by the review applicants and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Etc. Etc., [1989 SCR Supp. (2) 329=1990 SCC Supp.113], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the demand of RTP employees for being placed at par with regular, permanent or temporary employees in the matter of service conditions, Union of India & Ors. V. K.N. Sivadas, AIR 1990 SC 3100 and State of Uttranchal & Anr. V. Shiv Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 12 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024 Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., (CA No.7328-7329 of 2013 decided on 23.08.2013).
ii) The decision of the Tribunal granting consequential benefits of service rendered by the original applicants before the date of their absorption in PA cadre needs to be reviewed because the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already examined the question and settled it against the similarly situated persons in the matter of Jagrit Mazdoor Union (supra).
iii) The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that when the matter had already been adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been conclusively decided, raising the same question again before the Tribunal was barred by the principle of res judicata in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra, [(1990) 2 SCC 715].
iv) The Tribunal after taking note of the RTP Scheme, as contained in para-3 of the impugned order, has not found anything unconstitutional. The right of all the persons governed by the scheme shall be strictly as per the provisions of the scheme and cannot be changed in any way by this Tribunal in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3117/2009 decided on 10.05.2023.
v) The Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in CT No.135/1999 in OA No.795/1997 vide order dated 02.03.2000, examined the impact of the non-admission of the SLP against the order of the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal passed in TA No.82/86 and the impact of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in K.N. Sivadas (supra).
vi) The order of the Tribunal is to be reviewed in the light of the recent decision passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No.1373/2021, decided on 04.11.2024 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has examined the provisions of the RTP Scheme in detail and the impact of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.N. Sivadas (supra) and held that the benefit prior to the date of absorption cannot be provided to the employees.Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 13 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024
vii) The order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2024 is required to be reviewed in terms of the decision of the Tribunal in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. V. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., Civil Appeal No.9849 of 2014, for extending the benefit to the similarly placed persons, which is erroneous and based on obiter dicta and ignored the ratio decided of the case. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court has denied to provide relief to similarly situated persons on the ground of delay and latches.
viii) The order of the Tribunal under review is required to be reviewed as the Tribunal did not examine the limitation period of the cause of action which arose almost 30 years back. Hence, the OA itself was not maintainable under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
ix) The order of the Tribunal is further required to be reviewed in the light of the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.514/2020, wherein the Tribunal has rejected the claim of similarly placed applicants as time barred.
x) The order of the Tribunal under review is bad in law because the Hon'ble High Court of Telengana while deciding the Writ Petition No.17400/2016 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA No.779-780 of 2013, has not taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagrit Mazdoor and K.N. Sivadas (supra). The original applicants and other similarly situated persons in spite of conclusive pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Jagrit Mazdoor and K.N. Sivadas (supra) as well as the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in MA No.236/2001. 304/2001 and CP No.135/1999 in OA No.795/1997, have kept the litigation open by agitating the facts of the case in a distorted manner and now this chain of litigation needs to be brought to an end, since the matter is already covered by various judicial pronouncements by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Courts and this Tribunal.
2. The review applicants have also filed MA No.2216/2025 for condonation of delay of 84 days in filing the instant RA.
Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 14 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024
3. For the reasons mentioned in the MA, delay is condoned and the MA is allowed.
4. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and limited. A review cannot be entertained as an appeal in disguise. The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224, held:
"The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view."
5. Similarly, in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 337, it was reiterated that:
"A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected."
6. A careful examination of the RA reveals that it fails to disclose any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground justifying the invocation of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
7. Mere repetition of arguments already considered and rejected in the original judgment does not furnish a ground for review. The attempt in the present RA appears to be an effort to re-agitate settled issues under the guise of review, which is impermissible in law.
8. It is also found that on behalf of the applicant, reliance was placed on the order/judgment dated 18.09.2024 of this Tribunal in OA No. 197/2020 titled Naresh Kumar & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. and as evidently recorded in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the learned counsel for the respondents had not disputed that the issue involved in the present case is identical to that in OA No. 197/2020 (supra).
9. In view of the above, and guided by the settled principles in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against abuse of review jurisdiction, this Tribunal upon perusal of the grounds urged in the RA, is of the considered view that the review is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the RA stands dismissed, in circulation, as found devoid of merit." Digitally signed NEHA by NEHA SHARMA SHARMADate: 2025.11.28 10:43:34+05'30' 15 RA No. 177/2025 in OA No. 4477/2024
5. In view of the above, for parity, the present RA stands dismissed, in circulation, as found devoid of merit."
5. In view of the above and for parity, the present RA stands dismissed, in circulation, as found devoid of merit.
(B Anand) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/
Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA
SHARMA
SHARMADate: 2025.11.28
10:43:34+05'30'