SH CHANDRANSH PANDEY Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the review applicants seeking condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the application for review of order dated 21st December, 2009 allowing the writ petition of the petitioner and setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) The applicants have contended that they were parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which had passed the order dated 2nd July, 2008 in OA No. 284/2008 in favour of the applicants. According to the applicants, they were not impleaded as parties to the present writ petition which was filed by the petitioner against the order dated 2nd July, 2008 and consequently, the applicants were not heard and the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 2nd July, 2008 passed by the Tribunal was set aside.

(3.) The applicants have asserted that the other respondents, in compliance of the order dated 21st December, 2009, issued a letter dated 22nd February, 2010, which was displayed on the notice board. The applicants came to know about the order dated 21st December, 2009 on 8th March, 2010 from the notice board and consequent thereto the application for review has been filed on 16th March, 2010. In the circumstances, the applicants have contended that neither they were the parties to the present writ petition, although they are the necessary parties, nor the order dated 21st December, 2009 was passed in their presence nor was it communicated to them in any manner till they came to know about the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5341/2008 titled Sh. Chandransh Pandey Vs. Union of India and Ors. on 8th March, 2010. In the circumstances, the applicants have pleaded that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 53 days in filing the application for review of order dated 21st December, 2009. Reply to the application has not been filed on behalf of the petitioner/non-applicants. In any case, it has not been disputed by the petitioner/non-applicants that the applicants were parties before the Central Administrative Tribunal, however, the applicants were not impleaded as parties to the above noted writ petition.