Central Administrative Tribunal
Niraj Verma vs M/O COMMUNICATIONS on 28 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
R.A No. 125/2026 in OA No. 1337/2018
This the 28th Day of September, 2026
Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Niraj Verma
Aged about 59 years,
S/o Dr. Pramod Shankar Prasad Verma,
Indian Telecom Service, Group ‘A’ (Staff No. 08595), R/o House No. 23, Ground Floor, Jaipuria Enclave, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh - 201010. … Review Applicant
VERSUS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Member (Services) Telecom Commission, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Chief General Manager Telecom Gujarat Telecom Circle, 7th Floor, Telephone Bhawan, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006.
….Respondents
ORDER (In Circulation)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A):
The present Review Application had been filed by the applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 17.09.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1337/2018, whereby the O.A had been dismissed. Following reliefs have been prayed for in the instant R.A :- “a) Allow the present Review Application and review/recall the Final Order dated 17.09.2026 passed in O.A. No. 1337/2018.
b) In the interest of Justice the Review Application may be listed before the court for hearing; and,
c) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The applicant had contended that the Tribunal had failed to adjudicate his prayer for disposal of his representations dated 11.12.2017 and 02.01.2018 by a speaking and reasoned order. He had also alleged an inconsistency in the chronology recorded in the judgment and contended that Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the departmental examination of his case, the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act and the judicial precedents relied upon by him had not been properly considered.
3. We have considered the grounds raised in the Review Application and find that the applicant has essentially sought reconsideration of the issues already adjudicated in the O.A. Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate the facts or substitute a different view merely because a party is dissatisfied with the decision. The judgment under review had considered the controversy and observed that the respondents ought to have taken appropriate steps to bring the applicant’s service status to its logical conclusion. The applicant’s grievance regarding the manner in which his submissions and representations had been dealt with does not, in the absence of a demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record, warrant review of the judgment. The other grounds raised also do not disclose any such error or other sufficient reason for exercising the review jurisdiction.
4. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. The judgment dated 17.09.2026 passed in O.A. No. 1337/2018 shall remain undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath)
(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (A)
Member (J)
/Mbt/