AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
MA No. 5514 of 2025
The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the respondents seeking condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the accompanying Review Application, being RA No. 193 of 2025 in OA No. 2489 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the review applicants, Mr. Dhananjay Rana, appearing for the Union of India/Railways, submits that the Review Application has been preferred pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in LPA No. 14306 of 2023, decided on 23.07.2025.
Learned counsel submits that the Original Application was filed by the applicant seeking promotion vis-à-vis his immediate junior, Mr. Anil Chopra, Central Administrative Tribunalwho had been promoted with effect from the year 2005 in the grade of Under Secretary and thereafter as Deputy Director, RBSS. The Original Application was allowed in favour of the applicant by this Tribunal. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court.
It is submitted that, before the Hon’ble High Court, the respondents sought to rely upon certain facts which, according to them, could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time when the Original Application was decided on 20.03.2023. The Hon’ble High Court, vide order dated 23.07.2025, disposed of the proceedings and granted liberty to the respondents to approach this Tribunal by way of a Review Application. Relevant para of decision of Hon’ble High Court dated 23.07.2025 read as under:-
“5.The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the some of the above pleas, though pre-dating the Impugned Order passed by the learned Tribunal, were not urged before the learned Tribunal.
6.We are of the opinion that the Order of the learned Tribunal cannot be challenged on the basis of material which was not placed before the learned Tribunal. The proper remedy for the petitioner, if any, would be to approach the learned Tribunal.
7.We, however, make it clear that we have not examined the above pleas of the petitioner on merit.
8.Accordingly, reserving this liberty with the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of.”
Learned counsel fairly submits that, ordinarily, the Review Application ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, i.e., latest by 22.08.2025. However, the same came to be filed only on 25th November, 2025, after a delay of 95 days. It is submitted that the delay was occasioned on account of administrative reasons and was neither intentional nor deliberate. On these grounds, condonation of delay is sought.
We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel and perused the material on record.
At the outset, we find that the delay of 95 days has not been satisfactorily explained. The order of the Hon’ble High Court was passed on 23.07.2025 and liberty was granted to the respondents to approach this Tribunal. Nothing has been placed on record to explain as to why, despite such liberty having been granted, the respondents did not approach this Tribunal within the prescribed period or within a reasonable time thereafter.
It is also pertinent to note that the respondents had, during the proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court, sought to rely upon the very facts which now form the basis of the Review Application. Further, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court in June, 2025. Thus, the respondents were clearly aware of the facts sought to be relied upon in the Review Application much prior to the filing thereof.
Nothing prevented the respondents from approaching this Tribunal at that stage or, at the very least, immediately upon the passing of the order dated 23.07.2025. The explanation that the delay was merely administrative, without any particulars explaining the intervening period of 95 days, cannot constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such delay.
Accordingly, we find no sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 95 days in filing the Review Application. The present MA No. 5514 of 2025 is, therefore, dismissed.
Review Application No. 193 of 2025 in OA No. 2489 of 2015
Even otherwise, having considered the Review Application on merits, we find no ground warranting review of the order passed by this Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the review applicants has drawn our attention to Office Order No. 50 of 2024, stated to have been issued in purported compliance with the directions of this Tribunal in OA No. 591 of 2009, vide order dated 31.05.2016, titled N.K. Sharma and Others v. Union of India (Chairman) Ors. It is submitted that the said decision related to the dispute concerning seniority between direct recruit Section Officers and promotee Section Officers of the Railway Board Secretariat Service and that, in compliance thereof, the respondents were required to undertake review DPCs from the vacancy year 1980 onwards.
It is contended that the aforesaid facts could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal when the Original Application was decided and that the subsequent issuance of the revised seniority lists has a bearing on the applicant's case. On this basis, the respondents seek recall and rehearing of the earlier order.
The original applicant has opposed the Review Application and has specifically submitted that the Review Application is not maintainable, either on the ground of limitation or on merits. The applicant has filed his response to the Review Application and has, inter alia, stated as under:-
“10.It is respectfully submitted that as per their own admission the revised seniority list of SOs was issued on 29.08.2017. The Hon'ble Tribunal had decided the O.A. No. 2489 of 2015 on 20.03.2023. As such the Applicant had ample opportunity to raise this contention before this Hon'ble Tribunal before this matter was decided. However, they did not do so perhaps on account of the fact that the Respondent (Sathyan Pillai) stands senior to Sh. Anil Chopra vis-a-vis whom he has been granted NBR with effect from July, 2005 even after revision of this seniority list dated 29.08.2017 as placed at Annexure- 2 (Page No. 208-209) of the Additional Affidavit filed by the Applicant (Petitioner therein) before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
11.That it is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent had sought permanent absorption in RVNL while working as the Deputy General Manager on completion of 5 years of deputation with effect from 19.05.2009 and hence stood retired from Railway Service accordingly in May, 2009. His junior Sh. Anil Chopra continued to serve in Ministry of Railways till Oct, 2020 and retired from the post of Director in Railway Board, Ministry of Railways on 31.10.2020.
12.Thus both the Respondent (Sh. Sathyan Pillai) and Sh. Anil Chopra had retired from Railway Service when revised panels of the Grade of Under Secretary/ Deputy Director were issued by the Ministry of Railways vide their letter no. ERB-1/2012/17/3 dated 05.08.2024. In terms of Para No. 6.1 of this letter placed at Page No. 233 of the Additional Affidavit filed by the Applicant before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Officers getting empanelled to the Grade- 1 Under Secretary/Deputy Director of Railway Board Secretariat Service on later years or not empanelled in the above revised panels as compare to their original panels no recovery in Pay/ Pension will be made as they had shouldered higher responsibilities.
13.That accordingly Sh. Anil Chopra who stands Junior to the Respondent seniority as well as revision of Panels for appointment to the post of Under Secretary/Deputy Director undertaken by the Ministry of Railways in 2017 & 2024 respectively and as such continuous to be entitled for his pension as Director in the Ministry of Railway upon his retirement on 31.10.2020. That in view of facts stated above the Review Application which has been filed by the Ministry of Railways after a delay of 95 days from the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on their own admission without furnishing any reasonable explanation of the delay needs to be rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal both on the ground of delay as well as on merits and it is prayed accordingly so that the Respondent who is a senior citizen is saved from any further financial hardship on this account.”
We find substance in the objection raised by the original applicant. The decision of this Tribunal dated 31.05.2016 was admittedly already in existence and was within the knowledge of the respondents. The respondents were also in the process of implementing the said decision by conducting review DPCs and issuing revised seniority lists from the panel year 1980 onwards. Nothing prevented the respondents from bringing the said decision to the notice of the Tribunal when the Original Application was being considered.
A review is not an opportunity to re-agitate the matter or to introduce facts which were already within the knowledge of the party but were not brought before the Court or Tribunal at the appropriate stage. The jurisdiction of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is limited and can be exercised, inter alia, where there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the relevant time, or where there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
In the present case, neither any new and important evidence has been shown to have been discovered despite due diligence, nor has any error apparent on the face of the record been demonstrated. The earlier order of the Tribunal, on which reliance is now placed, was already in existence and was within the knowledge of the respondents. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own failure to place the relevant material before the Tribunal at the appropriate stage.
Further, even upon consideration of the revised seniority position relied upon by the respondents, the applicant continues to remain senior to Mr. Anil Chopra. The basis on which relief was granted to the applicant in the Original Application, namely, his claim for promotion vis-à-vis his immediate junior, therefore, remains unaffected.
Consequently, even on merits, we find no ground to review or recall the order passed by this Tribunal in the Original Application.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the MA No. 5514 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the Review Application No. 193 of 2025 is also dismissed, both on the ground of limitation and, on merits.
The Miscellaneous Application and the Review Application stand dismissed. Pending MA’s, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.