DR PALLAV SHARMA vs SHRI MATA VAISHNO DEVI UNIVERSITY on 31 December 2025

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAMMU BENCH

Review Application No. 46/2025 in T.A. No. 130/2025 Date of Order: This, the 31stday of December, 2025 HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Between Dr. Pallav Sharma, aged 51 years, S/o Sh. G.D. Sharma, R/o 46-E, B/C Gandhi Nagar, Jammu Tawi.

….. Review Applicant

-VERSUS-

Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University (SMVDU), Kakryal, Katra (J&K) through its Registrar …..Respondent

Advocate for applicant(s): Mr. Parag Sharma

Advocate for respondent(s): Ms. Shivani Jalali

ORDER(ORAL)

PER MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

At the outset, one M.A. No. 2002/2025 has been moved by the applicant praying for condoning the delay in filing the present Review Petition.

2. Considering the grounds raised therein in MA No. 2002/2025 and submission made by parties, the delay in filing instant RA is condoned. Accordingly, M.A. No. 2002/2025 is allowed.

3. The present RA has been moved by the applicant under Section 22(3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for review/recall of the Order dated 17.10.2025 passed by this Tribunal in T.A. No. 130 of 2025.

4. This Tribunal while allowing the T.A. No. 130/2025 on 17.10.2025 had observed and directed inter-alia:

13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in the present application except relief (c). Therefore, the TA is partly allowed with following directions:

i. The impugned order of recovery is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the salary or pensionary benefits of the applicant.

ii. The respondents are directed to refix the pension of the applicant on the last pay drawn.

iii. The whole amount recovered from the month of July 2011 till date, shall be refunded to the applicant preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant is basically seeking review of directions which are as under:

(i) regarding the pensionary benefits granted to the applicant as he had not claimed this relief of pensionary benefits neither in the writ petition nor in the pleadings of the TA.

(ii) Respondents were directed to refix the pension of applicant as it was not claimed by way of relief in the TA.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is apparent that there is an error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as the rights of the applicant is concerned.

7. Further, the law is well-settled that an error apparent on the face of record is a ground for review. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka (1993 Supp (4) SCC 595), and Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741, has held that review jurisdiction is intended to prevent miscarriage of justice and correct palpable errors. The present case squarely falls within this principle.

8. For the foregoing discussions, the present RA is disposed of. The order dated 17.10.2025passed in T.A. No. 130/2025is reviewed to the extent that para 13 of the order dated 17.10.2025 passed in T.A.130/2025 standsmodified and will be henceforth read as follows:

“13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in the present application except relief (c). Therefore, the TA is partly allowed with the following directions:

i. The impugned order of recovery is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed not to recover any amount from the salary of the applicant.

ii. The whole amount recovered from the month of July 2011 till date, shall be refunded to the applicant preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.”

9. This order shall form part of order dated 17.10.2025 passed in TA 130/2025.

10. Copy of this order shall be communicated to all the parties.

(R.M. JOHRI)

(R.S. DOGRA) MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)

/Sk/