Geeta Devi vs DEPTT OF POSTS on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

[By Circulation]

Per: Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, Member[J]::- The present review application has been filed by the applicant to review the order dated 08.09.2026 passed in OA No. 596/2026. The aforesaid OA (No. 596/2026) was filed by the applicant on 03.09.2026 with following reliefs:-

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-2- RA/050/00010/2026

“(a) Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this OA.

(b) May be pleased to declare memo No. B1-390/L dated 17-07-2023 (A/3) as non-est in eye of law and consequently issue order to quash and set aside.

(c) May graciously be pleased to declare impugned order of Director, Postal Services (North) Region, the Disciplinary Authority memo No Vig/RP-Puran Kr. Thakur /MTH/2003 dated 29-11-2023 (A/8).

(d) PMG (N) Muzaffarpur Appellate Authority Memo No. Vig/P(N)/AP- 14/MTH/2024 dated 03-04-2024(A/9) as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, vindictive, perverse and bad in law to quash and set aside the same (b) &(c) respectively.

(e) Further may be pleased to direct the respondents to revise the family pension taking into account the last pay of Late Puran Kumar Thakur amounting Rs 68000/- + 3% of Rs 68000 (Notional increment) as the basic pay (Last pay) at the time of date of superannuation on 31-12-2023 as per Govt. of Indi's order.

(f) May further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the applicant.

(g) Any other order/ orders as Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

(h) Cost of the case may please be awarded for unnecessary expenditure incurred in litigation causing mental agony, sorrow, sufferings and pain.”

2. In O.A. a brief factual matrix submitted by the counsel for the applicant on 08.09.2026 was that the husband of the applicant was the employee of the Postal Department. On 17.07.2023 a memorandum of charge was issued against him in connection with the Disciplinary Inquiry. The Inquiry was finalized on 29.11.2023 and by order of Inquiry Officer late Puran Kumar Thakur was awarded the

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-3- RA/050/00010/2026

punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages from Rs.68,000/- to Rs. 64,100/- in the time scale of pay matrix of level- 7 for the period from 01.12.2023 to 31.12.2023 with further pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period the deduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay and adversely affecting his pension also. Against the above punishment order, the employee approached to the Appellate Authority who vide order dated 03.04.2024 rejected the Appeal. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner has died on 13.05.2026. Thereafter, the applicant being the wife of the deceased employee Puran Kumar Thakur filed the OA assailing the charge memo dated 17.07.2023, order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.11.2023 and order of Appellate Authority dated 03.04.2024. It was further submitted by counsel for the applicant that the PPO was issued on the basis of above wrongly reduced last pay of the deceased in 2024.

3. It is also the fact that till his death, the husband of applicant has not challenged the above charge memorandum, punishment, order of Disciplinary Authority, Rejection order of Appellate Authority and the PPO, which allegedly has been issued wrongly. After passing almost two years and after the death of her husband, the applicant has preferred to file the said O.A.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-4- RA/050/00010/2026

4. We have perused and considered the review application.

5. Section 21 of the AT Act makes the following provisions with regard to limitation period for filing the OA:- “ 21. Limitation- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application –

(a) In a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause(a) of sub-section(2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made.

(b) …………………………….

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), where - (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason or any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, The application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause(a), or , as the case may be, clause(b), of sub-section(1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.

(3) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1) of sub- section(2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause(a) or clause(b) of sub-section(1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section(2), if the applicant satisfied the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause not making the application within such period.”

6. This Administrative Tribunal has been constituted under the provisions of Article-323A of Constitution of India. Sub clause 2(b) makes the provision that the procedure (including provision as to limitation and rules of evidence) is to be followed by the Administrative Tribunals.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-5- RA/050/00010/2026

In view of the mandate of constitutional provisions it is mandatory for the Tribunal to consider the question of limitation.

7. According to Section 22(3) (f) of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal shall have the same power as vested in a Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of reviewing its decisions.

8. Order 14(2) (b) of Code of Civil Procedure makes the provision that the Court may decide the applicability of Limitation Act before entering into merit of the case.

9. As according to the facts of the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment on 29.11.2023 which was assailed by the applicant by way of appeal and the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 03.04.2024. In the OA, the main relief of the applicant was that the charge memo dated 17.07.2023, order of Disciplinary Authority dated 29.11.2023 as well as order of Appellate Authority dated 03.04.2024 being illegal and arbitrary may be quashed and set aside. As a consequential relief, the applicant has sought that the family pension of the deceased employee be revised by considering his last pay which was Rs. 68,000/- + its 3% (which was pay of the deceased employee before awarding the punishment).

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-6- RA/050/00010/2026

10. This is also a fact that the aforesaid Puran Kumar Thakur had died on 13.05.2026. According to Section-21(1) (a) of the AT Act, 1985 it was necessary for applicant to approach this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance within a period of one year from the date of rejection of appeal as according to law the order of Disciplinary Authority was merged with the order of Appellate Authority. Accordingly, in the above case, it was necessary for applicant to file the OA before 03.04.2025 and if the applicant could not file the OA due to any compelling circumstances, then in that case it was mandatory for him to satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

11. Admittedly, OA No. 596/2026 has been filed in the registry of this Tribunal on 03.09.2026 vide Diary No. 1313 of 2026, which was beyond the period of limitation. As a matter of fact, the husband of the applicant was alive till 12.05.2026. From the date of order of Appellate Authority (i.e. 03.04.2024) till the date of his death, i.e. 13.05.2026 the applicant was incapable or suffering from any disability has neither been mentioned in the OA nor by way of any miscellaneous application, which was mandatory for him according to Section 21(3) of the Act.

12. When the case put up on the board on first date for admission the Tribunal has granted opportunity to counsel for the applicant to explain that when the applicant was alive for more than two years

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-7- RA/050/00010/2026

from the date of order of Appellate Authority, then what was precluding him to approach this Tribunal and why it should not be treated as the husband of the applicant accepted the punishment (according to principle of acquiescence) and that is why he could not approach this Tribunal, but learned counsel could not explain/reply the query of the Tribunal.

13. The grounds taken by the applicant in paragraphs 3 to 7 of the review application are matters of merit of the OA. In R.A. the applicant has brought the fact that after the date 03.04.2024 the husband of the applicant was suffering from illness as he was cancer patient, that is why he could not file the revision petition before the revisionary authority against the order of the Appellate Authority dated 03.04.2024 and orally it has been submitted that due to the aforesaid reason the applicant could not approach this Tribunal.

14. The aforesaid fact has not been brought by the applicant in the OA and according to provision Order 47, Rule-1 of CPC the above fact is not a new fact which was not in the knowledge of the applicant at the time of filing of the OA. Hence, we cannot consider the above fact in review.

15. The provision of Order 47 of CPC makes three stages to allow the review:-

(i) Discovery of new and important matter for evidence.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-8- RA/050/00010/2026

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Both the above ingredients are not applicable in the present case. Apart from that one more situation has been enumerated in the above provision for consideration of review, i.e. any other sufficient reason.

The phrase ‘any other sufficient reason’ typically involve failure of justice caused not by parties’ negligence but by external or procedural breakdown which may include a mistake committed irregularly by Court or its administrative staff or if the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, e.g. the order was passed without giving mandatory notice to the necessary party or where the party was prevented from being heard due to circumstances beyond their control or where the Tribunal labored under a patent fundamental misconception recording the core undisputed fact or settled point of law without directly influenced with the operative part of the order. The word ‘any other sufficient reason’ cannot be read in complete isolation of other two grounds as mentioned above. It must share a similar nature or character with the preceding two grounds. The scope of above phrase should not be extended through a review petition into a hidden appeal. The above phrase cannot be used simply because the parties feel that decision is erroneous in law or wants to re-argue or rehearing on the merits of the case.

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-9- RA/050/00010/2026

16. In other words, we may say that the scope of review according to Order 47, Rule-1 of CPC is limited. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re-hear or consider the review application as restoration application.

17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Kumar Sengupta [2008(8) SCC 612] has framed certain guidelines so far as consideration as well as jurisdiction to entertain the review which reads as under:- “ The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are :

(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.

(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).

(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.

(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.

(vii) While considering an application for review, the Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI

-10- RA/050/00010/2026

was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.

(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”

18. The Tribunal passed the order on 08.09.2026 in the OA and dismissed the same case upon the bar of limitation without entering into the merit of the case.

19. In view of the above, since no new ground can be taken in review hence we are of the considered view that the Review Application has no force of law and being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the RA is dismissed. [Justice Narendra Kumar Johari]

Member(J)

Hon’ble Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)

KABI SURYAR OOP KABI