Manoj Kumar Baranwal vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) :

This MA has been filed seeking condonation of delay of five days in filing the accompanying Review Application against the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in OA No. 599/2023. For the reasons stated in the MA, the delay of five days in filing the Review Application is condoned. The MA stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

The present Review Application has been filed seeking review/modification of the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in OA No. 599/2023. The prayer made in the RA is reproduced below :-

We have considered the Review Application and examined the judgment dated 30.06.2026 passed in O.A. No. 599/2023 alongside the judgment passed on the same date in O.A. No. 2688/2022. Although both Original Applications were heard together, separate orders were passed because the reliefs sought therein were distinct. O.A. No. 599/2023 concerned the treatment of the period from 15.05.2018 to 31.10.2021 as dies-non and the denial of pay and allowances for that period, whereas O.A. No. 2688/2022 concerned the applicant's claim for restoration of annual increments on a notional basis.

The Review Applicant has submitted that the discussion in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order in O.A. No. 599/2023, particularly the discussion concerning the effect of stoppage of increments and the judgment in Y. Venkata Sastry (Died) by LRs vs. State Bank of India, pertains to the controversy involved in O.A. No. 2688/2022. It is contended that the discussion and the operative conclusions in the two judgments have inadvertently become inconsistent and that the error requires correction under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

The record confirms that the two Original Applications involved different causes of action and different reliefs. The question of restoration of annual increments was specifically considered in O.A. No. 2688/2022, whereas the controversy in O.A. No. 599/2023 related to the treatment of the intervening period between dismissal and reinstatement. The discussion in the latter order must, therefore, be confined to the controversy arising in that Original Application.

The scope of review, however, is limited. Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely to rehear a matter or to substitute a different conclusion on the merits. At the same time, an accidental error apparent on the face of the record, if established, may be corrected so that the order accurately reflects the adjudication of the controversy before the Tribunal. The correction must remain confined to the error identified and cannot be used as a means of reopening the entire Original Application.

In the present case, the Review Applicant has sought not only correction of the discussion but also modification of the operative portion of the order in O.A. No. 599/2023 so as to allow that Original Application. The latter relief cannot follow automatically from the fact that the two matters were heard together or that certain passages in the judgments appear inconsistent. The claim concerning dies-non and pay and allowances must remain distinct from the claim concerning annual increments. The operative conclusion in one matter cannot simply be substituted by the operative conclusion in the other without a legally sustainable basis.

We are, therefore, of the considered view that the review must be confined to ensuring that the discussion in O.A. No. 599/2023 is read in the context of the issue actually arising therein. The question for consideration in that Original Application was whether the competent authority's decision to treat the period from 15.05.2018 to 31.10.2021 as dies-non and to deny pay and allowances for that period warranted interference. The applicant's challenge to the said decision was required to be examined with reference to the applicable provisions of Fundamental Rules 54 and 54-A, the effect of the earlier order modifying the penalty, and the circumstances in which the applicant was reinstated. The discussion concerning the restoration of annual increments, which formed the subject matter of O.A. No. 2688/2022, cannot independently determine the outcome of O.A. No. 599/2023.

Accordingly, the Review Application is allowed to the limited extent that the discussion in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order dated 30.06.2026 in O.A. No. 599/2023 shall be read subject to the clarification that the issue of restoration of annual increments, including the discussion concerning Y. Venkata Sastry (Died) by LRs vs. State Bank of India, pertains to the distinct controversy in O.A. No. 2688/2022 and shall not be treated as the determination of the claim for pay and allowances for the intervening period in O.A. No. 599/2023. The prayer to allow O.A. No. 599/2023 merely by substituting its operative conclusion with that of the companion matter is declined. The dismissal of O.A. No. 599/2023, as recorded in the operative portion of the order dated 30.06.2026, remains undisturbed. No opinion is expressed in the present proceedings on the correctness of the decision in O.A. No. 2688/2022, which is a separate order.

The Review Application stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.