Central Administrative Tribunal
Doordarshan vs P C SAHOO on 10 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
R.A.No. 260/00024 of 2026
[Arising out of OA 130/2018 disposed of on 25.09.2026]
Order dated : 10.11.2026
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Union of India & Ors. … …. Applicant
VERSUS
Prahallad Chandra Sahoo… …. Respondents
For the applicant : R.K.Sahoo
For the respondents : x x
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
5
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
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.
O R D E R
(On circulation)
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
Union of India and others, who were respondents in OA No.130/2018 filed this RA on 28.10.2026 seeking to review the final order passed by the Division Bench dated 25.09.2026 in OA 130/2018. The Registry scrutinized the RA and placed the matter under circulation for consideration in terms of the Rule 17 (3) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and the Notification RAVI KUMAR
dated 18th February, 1992 issued by Hon’ble Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Section 5, 12 and 22 of the A.T. Act, 1985.
3. We have gone through the entire pleadings made in the RA. Even on microscopic examination of the entire pleadings made in the RA, it is conclusively established that the respondents filed this RA not for correction/rectification of any error apparent on the face of record rather in the garb of giving a consideration of the entire matter on merit in short for rehearing the entire issue, which is absolutely impermissible under the statute and law.
4. Thus, it is established that the grounds taken by the review applicants in this RA do not pass the test of the conditions stipulated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC so as to review the order in deviation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) (at p. 1911); Sow. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib (AIR 1975 SC 1500); A. T. Sharma v. A. P. Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047); Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (AIR 1980 SC 674), and Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715. RAVI KUMAR
5. In view of the above, this RA is dismissed at this circulation stage. Registry is directed to upload this order in the official site as also copy to learned counsel for both sides.
(Pramod Kumar Das)
(Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.)
Member (Judl.)
RK/PS RAVI KUMAR