UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W.P.C.T. No.573 of 2000 an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 4th of September, 2000 in which it was held that the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal ) had no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing a review application in view of Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules). Subsequently this question had cropped up before another Division bench of this Court (quorum Altamas Kabir and Alok Kumar Basu, JJ.) in WPCT No. 271 of 2001. By an order dated 25th September. 2001 the Division Bench in WPCT No. 271 of 2001 had expressed its dissent from the views expressed in the order dated 4th September, 2000 in WPCT No.573 of 2000 and had formulated the question as noted here in below and thereafter referred the matter to the Hon 'ble Chief Justice for decision of the said question by constituting a Larger Bench. The question formulated by the Division Bench in WPCT No. 271 of 2001 (quorum Altamas Kabir and Alok Kumar Basu, JJ.) is as follows : -

(2.) A few relevant facts leading to this reference case may be required to be stated for proper decision of the question referred to us. The writ application is directed against an order dated 1st of December, 1999 passed by the Tribunal directing the Union of India to pay the arrear salaries to one Smt. Shefalika Sanyal who is now respondent No. 2 in the present writ application. Smt. Shefalika Sanyal filed an application before the Tribunal for reliefs as noted in the writ petition. The Union of India however, filed an application for review of the order dated 1st of December, 1999 before the Tribunal. From the record it appears that the review application was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal however dismissed the review application on the ground that in view of Rule 17 of the Rules, the question of entertaining an application for condonation of delay . in filing the review application could not arise at all. Therefore, the question that needs to be decided, as noted here in earlier, is whether an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for review can be entertained by the Tribunal in spite of Rule 17 of the Rules and in other words, Rules 17 takes away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain an application for condonation of delay in filing a review application.

(3.) BEFORE we deal with this question, as aforesaid, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions in the light of which the present controversy can be resolved. Chapter III of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in Short 'The Act ') deals with jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals. Chapter IV deals with the procedure for the Tribunals. Section 19 of the Act says that subject to the other provisions of the Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any other matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal, may make an application to the Tribunal for the redressal of his grievance. Section 20 of the Act deals with applications not to be admitted unless other remedies are exhausted. That is to say this section provides for admission of applications made by aggrieved person only if other remedies available have been exhausted. Section 21 of the Act deals with limitation in filing such original applications. Since in this case we are to consider the question whether an application for condonation of delay can be filed in a review application under the Act, it is expedient for us to quote Section 21 of the Act which runs as under : -