Defence vs SHASHI SHEKHAR PRIYDARSHI on 26 October 2026

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011.

2. The Director General of Ordnance Factory & Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, 10A, S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata-700001.

3. The General Manager, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Ordnance Factory Nalanda, Rajgir-803121.

4. The Assistant Works Manager, Ordnance Factory Nalanda, Nalanda, Rajgir-803121. …Review Applicants Versus

Shri Shashi Shekhar Priyadarshi, aged about 47 years, Son of Shri Arjun Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla – Ram Nagar, Gonawan, P.O., P.S. & District – Nawada (Bihar). …Review Respondent

KAPOOR

In OA No.405/2020

ORDER (In Circulation)

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

MA No.0050/00530/2026 in RA (Diary) No.1253/2026 in OA No.405/2020

The present Miscellaneous Application has been instituted on behalf of the review applicants (respondents in OA) under Rule 8(4) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking condonation of an inordinate delay of 430 days in filing a Review Application against the final order dated 09.07.2025 passed in O.A. No. 050/00405 of 2020.

2. We have perused the submissions advanced through the Application carefully including the entire material available on record, and evaluated all the facts, events, and legal principles surrounding the timeline of the case.

3. The undisputed factual matrix reveals that the final order in O.A. No. 050/00405/2020 was passed by this Tribunal on 09.07.2025, directing the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within 180 days, failing which the proceedings were to stand dropped. A certified copy of the said order was received by the review applicants (respondents in OA) on 17.07.2025. Instead of availing the statutory remedy of filing a

KAPOOR

In OA No.405/2020

review application within the mandated period of 30 days under the rules, the applicants subsequently filed M.A. No. 46/2026 for modification/extension of time, which came to be dismissed by this Tribunal on 27.02.2026. Thereafter, rather than seeking timely legal recourse within the parameters of this Tribunal, the applicants approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8448/2026, which was eventually disposed of on 15.07.2026, granting liberty to approach this Tribunal by way of a Review Application, as per law.

4. It is a well-established principle of law that the limitation period prescribed for invoking the review jurisdiction of this Tribunal is sacrosanct. The explanation tendered by the review applicants that they were prosecuting a writ petition before the Hon‟ble High Court does not cure or provide a valid legal basis for condoning the massive, unexplained delay that accrued prior to and outside the statutory framework. The law requires a litigant to explain "sufficient cause" for every day of delay beyond the period of limitation. Vague assertions of bona fide pursuit of remedies before a superior court cannot override the statutory bar of limitation, particularly when the initial delay commenced long before the writ petition was even filed, and

KAPOOR

In OA No.405/2020

when statutory timelines cannot be bypassed at the whim of a party.

5. We have also gone through the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble High Court, which reads as under :- “At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty on behalf of the petitioners to file review petition before the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, seeking review of order dated 9.07.2025, passed in OA/050/00405/2020.

2. We are of the view that if the law so permits, nothing prevents the petitioners from filing review petition.

3. Accordingly, the present writ petitioner stands dismissed.”

6. It is crucial to note the precise import of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court, which is explicitly conditioned upon the permission of law. A careful examination of the statutory framework reveals that the law does not permit the entertaining of a review application after an inordinate, unexplained delay of 430 days, as the limitation period prescribed under the statute is strict and mandatory. When the law does not permit the condonation of such delayed filing and the bar of limitation comes directly in the way, the conditional liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court cannot

KAPOOR

In OA No.405/2020

be invoked to breathe life into a hopelessly time-barred petition.

7. Taking all facts, attending events, and the sequence of laches into consideration, we find that the applicants have miserably failed to establish any legally tenable or sufficient cause that would warrant the condonation of 430 days of delay. Once the application seeking condonation of delay fails, the accompanying Review Application cannot be entertained and is legally non-maintainable being barred by limitation.

8. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 430 days is hereby dismissed.

9. Consequently, the accompanying Review Application (Diary No. 1253/2026) is also dismissed as barred by limitation, along with all associated miscellaneous applications, if any.

(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Member (J) Member (A) „rk‟

KAPOOR