Last Updated on March 2, 2026 by Satish Mishra

A Review Application in the Chandigarh Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) must be filed within 30 days of receiving the order, based on limited grounds like errors apparent on the face of the record, under Section 22 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It generally requires a sworn affidavit and is usually decided by circulation by the same Bench, aiming to correct mistakes rather than re-argue the case.

Key Aspects of Review Applications (RA) at CAT Chandigarh:

Limitation Period: The application must be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Grounds for Review: A review is not an appeal. It is only entertained if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or if new, crucial evidence is discovered that was not available despite due diligence during the original hearing.
Procedure:
- By Circulation: Typically, reviews are decided by the Bench through circulation without an open court hearing, unless otherwise directed.
- Same Bench: The application is usually heard by the same Bench that passed the original order.
- Affidavit Requirement: It must be supported by a sworn affidavit.
Limitations: A Review Application cannot be used to re-argue the case on merits. If a review application is dismissed, no further review is allowed.
Legal Basis: The tribunal follows principles of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The post talks about Review Application Chandigarh Central Administrative Tribunal in line with case of Shiva Kant Jha v. UOI.

For official forms and e-filing, you can visit the CAT e-filing portal.

RAJE RAM LAMBA v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

In this post, the topic is discussion is related to a review application that was filed by the applicant to review the order dated 21.12.2018. The petition was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, where the along with the review application, another application was moved by the applicants, condoning the delay of 352 days in filing the review application.

Also Read- CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENT APPEAL CAT Chandigarh

APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT IN RA:

Raje Ram Lamba S/o Sh. Bisakhi Ram, aged 64 years, H. No. 124, InderPersth Colony, Opposite New Tehsil Office, Uklana, Distt: Hisar – Haryana-125 001

RESPONDENTS/ REVIEW APPLICANTS:

Union of India through Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Pocket No. 9, DeenDayalUpadhayay Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.
Accountant General (A & E), Punjab, Plot No. 21, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.

QUORAM:

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

Also Read- AFT CAT NCLT DRT High Court Chandigarh Jurisdiction

FACTS:

The RA (Review Application), filed by the applicant/ respondent, in OA (Original Application) to review the order dated 21.12.2018. The OA was disposed of after hearing the learned counsel of the parties. The order passed was based on the judgement pronounced by this court and upheld by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court, which was the case UOI & Ors v. Mohan Lal Gupta & Anr. The court followed the judgement and allowed the case for medical reimbursement under C.S. (MA) Rules, 1944. The respondent had challenged the order before the High Court but the same was withdrawn to file a RA before the Tribunal. The review applicant along with the RA, also moved an application for condonation of delay of 352 days in filing the RA.

Also Read- Types of Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

DECISION OF THE COURT:

The court was of the opinion that it has no reason to condone the huge delay of 352 days. It held that the plea of referring the matter to the Headquarters was not a sufficient ground to ignore the delay in a matter where a poor retired employee is seeking reimbursement of his medical claim before the court. Additionally, the grounds for raising the review petition by the applicant are available to him at the time of arguing. However, by raising the present review petition by the applicant to re-argue the entire matter fresh is not within the scope of revision. The issue has already been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha v. UOI.

Also Read- Petition in CAT Tribunal Chandigarh for MACP Scheme

The OA was disposed keeping in mind the law laid down by this bench and upheld by the High Court. The applicant has failed to satisfy the delay in the RA, hence the present MA as well as the RA stands dismissed.

Also Read- Central Administrative Tribunal Judgments – Indian Kanoon

For case specific advice, please contact Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Lawyers Advocates dealing in service matters of central government in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur (Punjab & Haryana Top Expert Service Lawyers of High Court Chandigarh).