Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suresh Kumar Rajput vs Gnctd on 27 May, 2025
1
Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Date of Order : 27.05.2025
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
1.MA No. 1190/2025 in OA No. 1309/2024
SURESH KUMAR RAJPUT
(disabled since 17-11-2018)
Through
HIMANI RAJPUT
Eldest d/o Suresh Kumar Rajput R/O FLAT NO. B-265,
Delhi Admn. Flats Timarpur, Delhi - 110054. (M)
9873991124 [email protected]
... Applicant
Versus
1. The GNCT of Delhi
Through
The Chief Secretary GNCT of Delhi 5" Floor, 'A' Wing Delhi
Secretariat IP Extension, New Delhi - 110 002.
[email protected]
2. The Director General Directorate General of Health
Services GNCT of Delhi F-17, Karkardooma Delhi - 110 032.
[email protected]
3. The Additional Director Delhi Govt. Employees Health
Scheme GNCT of Delhi F-17, Karkardooma Delhi - 110032
[email protected]
4. The Medical Superintendent. Aruna Asaf Ali Govt.
Hospital (GNCT of Delhi) 5, Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054.
[email protected]
5. The Principle Secretary/Secretary Health & Family
Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. 9th , Level, A-
2
Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024
Wing, Delhi Sectt. IP Extension, New Delhi - 110 002.
[email protected]
... Respondents
2. MA No 1526/2025 in OA No. 1309/2024
SURESH KUMAR RAJPUT
(disabled since 17-11-2018)
Through
HIMANI RAJPUT
Eldest d/o Suresh Kumar Rajput R/O FLAT NO. B-265,
Delhi Admn. Flats Timarpur, Delhi - 110054. (M)
9873991124 [email protected]
... Applicant
Versus
1. The GNCT of Delhi
Through
The Chief Secretary GNCT of Delhi 5" Floor, 'A' Wing Delhi
Secretariat IP Extension, New Delhi - 110 002.
[email protected]
2. The Director General Directorate General of Health
Services GNCT of Delhi F-17, Karkardooma Delhi - 110 032.
[email protected]
3. The Additional Director Delhi Govt. Employees Health
Scheme GNCT of Delhi F-17, Karkardooma Delhi - 110032
[email protected]
4. The Medical Superintendent. Aruna Asaf Ali Govt.
Hospital (GNCT of Delhi) 5, Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054.
[email protected]
5. The Principle Secretary/Secretary Health & Family
Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. 9th , Level, A-
Wing, Delhi Sectt. IP Extension, New Delhi - 110 002.
[email protected]
... Respondents
3
Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024
3. MA No 2061/2025 in OA No. 1309/2024
SURESH KUMAR RAJPUT
(disabled since 17-11-2018)
Through
HIMANI RAJPUT
Eldest do Suresh Kumar Rajput R/O FLAT NO. B-265, Delhi
Admn. Flats Timarpur, Delhi - 110054. (M) 9873991124
[email protected]
... Applicant
Versus
1. The GNCT of Delhi
Through
The Chief Secretary GNCT of Delhi 5" Floor, 'A' Wing Delhi
Secretariat IP Extension, New Delhi - 110 002.
[email protected]
2. The Director General Directorate General of Health
Services GNCT of Delhi F-17, Karkardooma Delhi - 110 032.
[email protected]
3. The Additional Director Delhi Govt. Employees Health
Scheme GNCT of Delhi F-17, Karkardooma Delhi - 110032
[email protected]
4. The Medical Superintendent. Aruna Asaf Ali Govt.
Hospital (GNCT of Delhi) 5, Rajpur Road, Delhi 110054.
[email protected]
5. The Principle Secretary/Secretary Health & Family
Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. 9th , Level, A-
Wing, Delhi Sectt. IP Extension, New Delhi - 110 002.
[email protected]
... Respondents
For Applicants: Mr. Harish Kumar Karwal, Advocate.
For Respondents: Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate.
4
Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024
O R D E R (ORAL)
As per: Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (Administrative) All these three MAs raise the common core issue of question of law and are based on almost similar facts and relief claimed to modify/clarify orders dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 and order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 dismissed in circulation by this Bench. So also CP No. 152/2025 in OA No. 1309/2024 has been dismissed vide order dated 27.05.2025 with liberty to assail the correctness of the compliance order dated 16.04.2025 passed to consider and take a decision by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Briefly stated facts in MA No. 1190/2025, MA No. 1526/2025 & MA No. 2061/2025 filed in OA No. 1309/2024 for appreciating the core issue in the batch of Mas- "whether in the guise of MA for modification/clarification/ directions of order dated 19.12.2024 in OA NO. 1309/2024 and order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 in essence seeking the second review under scheme of review under A.T. Act, 1985 is maintainable or not in the eyes of law."
5Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 MA NO.1190/2025 in OA No.1309/2025 3 (i). The instant MA has been filed under Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 on the principles of natural justice seeking urgent modification in orders dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 and order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 filed by the applicant. Briefly stated facts as stated in the MA and that the applicant is a serving high support need permanent Disabled Delhi Government Employee who suffered major brain stroke on 17.11.2018, protected under RPWD Act, 2016 seeking direction under special enactments. It is also averred that the orders dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 and order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 have neglected substantive law and did not consider substantive material documentary evidences executed by the respondents. The orders dated 19.12.2024 in OA NO. 1309/2024 & 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 unlawfully upheld the version of the respondents. The Tribunal has not discussed materials facts and noting sheets of relevant facts and noting sheets of relevant files, summary of medical bills given. The Tribunal disposed of OA No. 1309/2024 and not considered that the impugned orders dated 30.06.2021, 15.11.2021 and 04.05.2023 are in violation of the principles 6 Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 of natural justice, Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal by its orders dated 19.12.2024 and 31.01.2025 drawn results without reasons and in ignorance of vulnerable grievances and relief south. The order dated 19.12.2024 is mockery of law of land and Court of Law.
(ii). The sum and substance of the present MA is seeking a fresh re-hearing of OA No. 1309/2024 decided on 19.12.2024 and RA No. 11/2025 dismissed on 31.01.2025. So also CP No. 152/2025, arising out of orders dated 19.12.2024 and 31.01.2025 with liberty to the applicant to assail the correctness of the order dated 16.04.2025, passed pursuant to the directions issued to the respondents in OA No. 1309/2024.
MA No. 1526/2025 in OA No.1309/2025 4 (i). The instant MA has been filed under Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 on the principles of natural justice to direct all the respondents to follow and comply all issues of high support need permanent disabled Government employees under protective ambit of RPWD Act, 2016 since all the impugned orders dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 and 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 passed by this Tribunal neither safeguards nor protects the rights of 7 Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 the persons with disability nor cover the substantive law and material facts. Facts as stated in nutshell are that the applicant is a serving high support need permanent Disabled Delhi Government Employee who suffered major Brain Stroke on 17.11.2018 and is covered and protected under RPWD Act, 2016. The orders dated 19.12.2024 and 31.01.2025 in OA No. 1309/2024 & RA No. 11/2025 respectively are in violation of the principles of natural justice and without reasons and not considered substantive law, material documentary evidences etc, noting sheet of files, summary of medical bills etc and impugned orders dated 30.06.2021, 15.11.2021 and 04.05.2023 of respondents and this Tribunal' orders dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2025 and 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 are violative of RPWD Act, 2016 and Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ii). The sum and substance of the present MA is seeking a fresh re-hearing of OA No. 1309/2024 decided on 19.12.2024 and RA No. 11/2025 dismissed on 31.01.2025. So also CP No. 152/2025, arising out of orders dated 19.12.2024 and 31.01.2025 dimissed vide order dated 27.05.2025 with liberty to the applicant to assail the correctness of the order dated 16.04.2025, passed pursuant 8 Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 to the directions issued to the respondents in OA No. 1309/2024.
MA No 2061/2025 in OA No.1309/2025 5 (i). The instant MA has been filed under Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 on the principles of natural justice seeking hearing in the matter in case of serving high-support need permanent disabled applicant. Facts in brief are that the applicant a is a serving high support need permanent Disabled Delhi Government Employee who suffered major Brain Stroke on 17.11.2018 and is covered and protected under RRWD Act, 2016. The impugned orders dated 0.06.2021, 15.11.2021 and 04.05.2023 passed by the respondents defeated directions of the orders dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024.
(ii) The sum and substance of the case of the applicant in the instant MAs to hear all the pending MAs in the case of applicant in accordance with mandatory provisions under protective ambit of RPWD Act, 2016.
6. By way of the present MAs under garb of Rule 14 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, applicant is seeking modification in order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 titled Suresh Rajput Vs. GNCTD & Ors and 9 Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 order dated 31.03.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 titled Suresh Kumar Rajput Vs. GNCTD & Ors.
SUBMISSIONS
7. Mr. Harish Kumar Karwal, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 and in RA No. 11/2025, order dated 31.03.2025 may be modified in favour of the high need permanent disabled person as per RPWD Act, 2016, reimburse in full as per actual long pending nursing care and therepy charges and pending medical expenses etc.
8. Mr. Amit Anand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present MA under garb of garb of Rule 14 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, is abuse of process of Court and not maintainable in eyes of law in garb of modification of order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025, arising out order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 and applicant in reality seeking second review to review/modify order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 and recall/modify order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties with consent and perused the available records 10 Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 RULE OF LAW
10. To appreciate the issue relating to the maintainability of the present MAs in garb of the second review application, it it will be necessary to notice the scheme of review application as embodied in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (For brevity hereinafter referred as Act, 1985).
11. The review application can be filed before this Tribunal and relevant provisions are reproduced for ready reference, reads as under:
(i) Section 22-Administrative Tribunals Act-
"(1)................................................................. (2)................................................................. (3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of 2 [discharging its functions under this Act], the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) to e.......................................................
(f) reviewing its decisions;
(g) to i.........................................................
(ii) Section-114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Review-Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(ii) Section 114 of CPC grants the power to a Court to review its own judgment or order under the order XLVII Rule-1, CPC, outlines the limited grounds for such review
(iii) Rule 17 of Application of Review of Central Administrative (Procedure) Rules, 1987- 11
Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 (1) 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.
(2) A review application shall ordinarily be heard by the same Bench which has passed the order, unless the Chairman, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct it to be heard by other Bench.
(3) Unless otherwise ordered by the Bench concerned, a review application shall be disposed off by circulation and the Bench may either dismiss the application or direct notice to he opposite party.
(4) When an application for review of any judgment or oder has been made and disposed of no further application for review shall be entertained in the same manner.
(5) No application for review shall be entertained unless it is supported by duly sworn affidavit indicating therein the source of knowledge, personal or otherwise, and also those which are worn on the basis of the legal advise. The counter-affidavit in review application will also be a duly sworn affidavit wherever any averment of fact disputed."
(emphasis supplied)
12. As evident from the scheme provided for reviewing its decisions under section 22 (3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunals, Act 1985 read with sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 a review application shall ordinarily be heard by the same Bench which has passed the order.
13. Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 specifically envisaged that unless otherwise ordered by the Bench concerned, a review application shall be disposed of by circulation and the Bench may either dismiss the application or direct notice to opposite party.
12Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024
14. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 17 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 also envisaged that when application for review of any judgment or order has been made and disposed off, no further application for review shall be entertained in the same manner.
CASE-LAW
15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban, (2000) 7 SCC
296. Their Lordships held-
"By describing an application as one for clarification or modification-though it is really one of review- a party cannot be permitted to circumvent or bypass the circulation procedure and indirectly obtain a hearing in the open Court. What cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly"
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the case of A.P.S.R.T.C & Others Vs. Abdul Kareem, Civil Appeal No. 7797 of 2003, decided on 12.01.2007.Their Lordships held-
"The Court should not permit hearing of such an application for „clarification‟ „ modification‟ or „recall‟ if the application is in substance a clever move for review."
(emphasis supplied) DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
17. Now coming to the factual matrix of the present MAs in garb of modification in order dated 19.12.2024 in OA NO. 13 Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 1309/2024 and order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 is repeating same arguments. So also, in substance seeking second review impermissible under order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC and the Scheme of the Act, 1985 already extracted and discussed. So also held in the case of Niyamavedi Vs. UOI & Ors, reported in AIR 2004 Ker 81 by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
18. Applicant under the guise of these MAs in essence and substance is seeking modification or orders by way of the second review to review order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025 and dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024.
19. Counsel for the applicant is fully aware of the normal procedure under the scheme of review under Act, 1985, sub- rule (3) of Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, unless otherwise ordered by the Bench concerned, a review application shall be disposed off by circulation and the Bench may either dismiss the application or direct notice to the opposite party. In this case RA No.11/2025 in OA No. 1309/2024 was dismissed by circulation vide order dated 31.01.2025, by this Bench being devoid of merits.
20. In our considered view, the present MAs itself are unjustified and no interference is warranted and same is 14 Item No.23 (C-6) MA Nos1190/2025, 1526/2025 & 2061/2025 In OA No. 1309/2024 move to review order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11/2025, arising out of order dated 19.1.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024 and not maintainable.
21. Another aspect of the matter is that the counsel for the applicant filed CP No. 152/2025 arising out of order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No. 1309/2024. This Tribunal vide order dated 27.05.2025 dismissed the said CP with liberty to the applicant to assail the correctness of the compliance order dated 16.04.2025 passed in compliance of direction issued vide order dated 19.12.2024 in question in present MAs.
CONCLUSION
22. For all the reasons stated hereinabove and in our considered opinion, the present MAs for modification/clarification or recall of order dated 19.12.2014 in OA No. 1309/2024 and order dated 31.01.2025 in RA No. 11.2025 is repetitive move for review and not maintainable.
23. Resultantly, the present MAs are accordingly dismissed.
24. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
25. As a sequel thereof, pending MA(s), if any, shall also stands closed.
26. Copy of this order by placed in each Miscellaneous Application.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sanjeeva Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)