Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr M Rajesh vs Drdo And Others on 9 March, 2026
1
R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.170/00001/2026
& M.A 170/00021/2026
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00240/2021
Order Reserved on: 16.2.2026
Date of Order: 09.03.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
Dr.M.Rajesh
S/o.Shri.B.G.Mohan
Aged about 53 years, R/o 193, 10th Cross
William Town, Bangalore-560 046 ...Review applicant
(By Advocate Shri.T.C.Gupta)
Vs.
1. Union of India, through the Secretary & Chairman
Ministry of Defence, Defence Research & Development
Organisation, DRDO Bhawan, Rajaji Marg
New Delhi - 110 011
2. Director, Ministry of Defence
Defence Research & Development
Organization, DRDO Bhawan
Rajaji Marg
New Delhi - 110 011
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY BANGALORE
2026.03.12
10:17:24
VIJU +05'30'
2
R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Director, Ministry of Defence
DR&DO, ARDE, Armament Post
Pashan, Pune - 411 021 ...Review respondents
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
1. This Review Application has been filed against the order in O.A 170/00240/2021 dated 3rd January 2025 of this Tribunal. This Review Application has been filed on 06.01.2026 after the expiry of almost one year. The Review Applicants have filed a Miscellaneous Application No.170/00021/2026 for condoning the delay wherein he prays that the delay may be condoned and this Review Application may be allowed.
2. The reason assigned in the Miscellaneous Application mentions at paragraph 2 that the applicant was living in Japan and came to India on 07.12.2025. After coming to India, the earlier counsel refused to take any action in the matter and the applicant contacted the new counsel, who was ill at that time. Now the new counsel has recovered and on his advice the applicant has filed present R.A. Copy of the passport is also enclosed. Therefore, the applicant prays for condoning the delay of about 11 months in filing the R.A. SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.03.12 10:17:24 VIJU +05'30' 3 R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
3. Admittedly, the present Review Application is filed beyond 30 days with a delay condonation application under Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which states as under:-
"17. Application for review - (1) No application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order sought to be reviewed."
Hence, the Review Application filed beyond 30 days will not be maintainable in terms of the aforesaid Rule 17.
4. In the case of K. Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India - 1997 (6) SCC 473 (Para 4), while examining the provisions of Section 22(3)(f) of the AT Act and the Rule 17(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules and also order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the right of review is available to the aggrieved person on restricted ground as mentioned in the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure if filed within the period of limitation. The matter of condonation of delay in such cases also came before the Full Bench of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Narasimha Rao Vs. Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal and others - 2005(4) SLR 720 and it was held that the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to condone the delay under the Limitation Act. In SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.03.12 10:17:24 VIJU +05'30' 4 R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE this case, this Review Application was filed on 6.1.2026 impugning the order dated 03.01.2025 of this Tribunal.
5. It is clearly seen that there is delay of more than eleven months and as per the M.A No.170/00021 of 2026, delay in filing this Review Application is explained as the applicant was living in Japan, earlier counsel refused to take any action in the matter and new counsel was ill etc., which are not a valid reason for accepting the said M.A for condonation of delay. Such reasons cannot be accepted to be satisfactory. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application No.170/00021/2026 for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application is liable to be dismissed.
6. Regarding merits, the review of the order of this Tribunal is done under the section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with provisions of the rule 1 Order 47 of the CPC which states as under: -
"1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a). by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b). by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c). by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.03.12 10:17:24 VIJU +05'30' 5 R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."
7. It is noted that the scope of reviewing the order of this Tribunal is limited to the grounds as mentioned in the Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. A review application can be entertained on the ground of error apparent on the face of record or new facts / matter which was not known at the time of hearing of the O.A. In the case of State of West Bengal And Others v. Kamal Sengupta and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following factors to be kept in mind for review:-
"(i). The power of the Tribunal to review is akin to order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114.
(ii). The grounds enumerated in order 47 Rule 1 to be followed and not otherwise.
(iii). "that any other sufficient reasons" in order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv). An error which is not self evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record.
(v). An erroneous decision cannot be corrected under review.
(vi). An order cannot be reviewed on the basis of subsequent decision / judgment of coordinate Larger bench or a superior Court.
(vii). The adjudication has to be with regard to material which were available at the time of initial decision subsequent event / developments are not error apparent.
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.03.12 10:17:24 VIJU +05'30' 6 R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
(viii). Mere discovery of new / important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party also has to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence the same could not be produced earlier before the Tribunal."
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others - (2007) 15 SCC 513 has dealt with the question of review and its maintainability and has held as under: -
"6. The limitation on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.
9. In the case of Inder Chand Jain (Dead) through Lrs, Vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs. Reported in (2009) 14 SCC 663 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"..10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [AIR 2000 SC 1650], this Court held :
"56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise."
SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.03.12 10:17:24 VIJU +05'30' 7 R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE
10. Perusal of the grounds mentioned in the Review Application indicates that the grounds mentioned in the Review Application have been considered at the time of passing the order dated 03.01.2025 and no fresh ground as required under the law has been made out in the Review Application and no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out.
11. From the contents of the Review Application, it is clear that the main contention of the review applicants is that by means of the directions contained in order dated 03.01.2025, the Tribunal had dismissed the Original Application in view of the order passed in O.A No.167/2021, dismissing the application filed by the applicant, whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement from service imposed on the applicant has been confirmed. The review applicant contends that the bench did not decide this O.A on merits. But no cogent reason is given and no new facts or any grounds are agitated which can be considered as sufficient reason to review the said order. There is no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record which can be discovered with a long process of reasoning. In this R.A, nothing is pointed out which may be shown that the decision should be SHAIN SHAINEY CAT VIJU EY BANGALORE 2026.03.12 10:17:24 VIJU +05'30' 8 R.A.No.170/00001/2026/CAT/BANGALORE erroneous which can be granted in the review. Hence, there is no ground made out in the R.A.
12. In view of all the above reasons and discussions, the Miscellaneous Application No.170/00021/2026 for condonation of delay is hereby rejected. Consequently and for other reasons as given above, the Review Application No.170/00001/2026 is also dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(M.SWAMINATHAN) (DR. SANJIV KUMAR)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
/sv/
SHAIN SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
EY BANGALORE
2026.03.12
10:17:24
VIJU +05'30'