Central Administrative Tribunal
GAUTAM vs REVENUE CBIC on 4 November 2026
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.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW 7/5, GOMTI NAGAR EXTENSION, LUCKNOW Order Sheet Item no.: 50 M.A./3025/2026 (LUCKNOW) [ CORRECTION APPL ] [ SENIOR CITIZEN ] In O.A./493/2025 REVISION OF PAY Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 04/11/2026 GAUTAM Vs REVENUE CBIC
For Applicant(s) Advocate : NARSINGH NARAIN LAL
For Respondent(s) Advocate : PRAYAGMATI GUPTA Order of The Tribunal Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records. Through MA No. 3025/2026, applicant prayed for correction/modification in the order dated 29.09.2026 passed in OA No. 493 of 2025 as well as in the pleadings of the OA. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the surname/ last name of applicant no. 12 and his father was written “Goswamy” instead of “Goswami” in the array of applicants of the OA as well as in the order dated 29.09.2026 passed in OA No. 493/2026. Learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the aforesaid submissions. There is no ground of correction/modification in the array of parties as well in the judgment dated 29.09.2026 passed in OA No. 493/2026. Hence, MA No. 3025/2026 is rejected.
However, applicant may bring notice to the competent authority about the surname /last name of the applicant no. 12 as well as his father mentioned in the correction/modification application through fresh representation and respondents/competent authority shall consider the same while disposing of the representation.
PANKAJ KUMAR Member (A) JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA Member (J) Jn Singh ( ps )