UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHANCHAL NAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its components for assailing the order dtd. 8/6/2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), dismissing the Review Application No. 40/00009/2019, supported by Misc. Application No. 149/2019 preferred by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay of 768 days in filing the Review Application, through which the order dtd. 4/8/2017, passed in Original Application No. 40/00063/2017 was sought to be recalled/reviewed.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. S. C. Keyal, representing the Union of India vehemently and fervently contended that the Tribunal was totally unjustified in rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the Review Application by holding that there was no power with the Tribunal so as to condone the delay. He placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and Anr. reported in 2002 SCC OnLine Cal 597, further reaffirmed by Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ram Krishna Mondal and Ors., reported in WB 2622/2019. He submitted that the Full Benches of Calcutta High Court, after adverting to the statutory provisions contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1985") and the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1987"), have held in unequivocal terms that the Tribunal has the power under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay occasioned in filing Review Application despite the restriction contained in Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987. He thus implored the Court to accept the writ petition, set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to consider the Review Application on merits after condoning the delay.

(3.) Per contra, Dr. G. J. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondent vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Mr. Keyal. Dr. Sharma placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ajit Babu and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1997) 6 SCC 473, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: