Last Updated on March 16, 2026 by Satish Mishra

A review petition in the CAT Chandigarh Bench is filed under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, to request a review of a final order. It is generally handled by the same bench that passed the initial order to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, rather than re-arguing the case.

Key Aspects of a CAT Review Petition (Chandigarh)

• Grounds for Review: A review is not an appeal in disguise. It is permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or if new important evidence is discovered which was not within the applicant’s knowledge despite due diligence.
• Limitation Period: Review applications are typically expected to be filed within 30 days of the judgment, similar to Supreme Court procedures.
• Procedure: The petition is often considered in chambers without oral arguments. It requires the same bench to examine if the initial decision needs correction based on existing material.
• Limitations on Review: An erroneous order cannot be corrected in the guise of a review, and subsequent changes in law or decisions of higher courts do not constitute valid grounds for reviewing a finalized order.
• Common Applications: Review petitions are filed in matters related to service conditions, promotions, disciplinary penalties, and seniority, such as the case where the Chandigarh administration sought to review the retirement age of lecturers. 

Legal Basis

The power to review is derived from Section 22(3)(f) of the Act and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), allowing the tribunal to review its decisions to ensure justice.

Post covers CAT Review Petition Chandigarh Bench Legal Advice. Case decided on basis of STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS VS. KAMAL SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER judgment.

Principles of REVIEW Application Before CAT Tribunal Chandigarh

INTRODUCTION

In India, there are three tiers Judiciary i.e. District Courts, High Courts and hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The appeal, review and revision lies in all the three Courts depending on which Court’s Order is being challenged. Therefore, it is necessary to know the nature and scope of all these three words and also how they are different from each other. It is imperative to know the scope of all these to exercise the power of reviewability against the impugned order of the respective Court. Review means to reconsider, to look again or to re-examine. In legal sense, it is a judicial re-examination of the case by the same court and by the same Judge.

Also Read- Review Application Chandigarh Central Administrative Tribunal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The applicant filed a review application        RA in the Central Administrative Tribunal. The original application was also filed in the tribunal and the claim of the applicant was rejected. After the decision of the court, applicant pleaded to get a review decision.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

In the R.A., the applicant pleads that competent authority has failed to consider his claim as per various judicial pronouncements. Further, he pleads that another O.A. has been decided by this Tribunal by directing the department to consider payment of medical expenses in view of law laid down in the case of Mohan Lal Gupta.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

In the present case, there is no decision whatsoever by the respondents on the claim of the applicant.

Also Read- Free Legal Advice Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Punjab

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

The applicant is drawing similarity in two cases which are not similar at all. The only ‘order’ brought in the present O.A. was an internal communication between Respondent No.2 and No.3. Even this ‘order’ was by way of ‘remarks’. And in conclusion, there was only an ‘advice’. No communication to the applicant himself from the respondent department was enclosed with the O.A. So, in this case it was rightly concluded that respondents are yet to take a final call on the claim of the applicant.

Also Read- District Courts Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Derabassi Kharar

CONCLUSION

There is no similarity between these two cases. While in one case decision has been taken by the respondents on the claim of the applicant, it was not so in the present O.A. Needless to mention here that each case has to be examined and decided on the basis of facts involved therein and not in a mechanical manner. Therefore the RA is totaaly misconceived and dismissed.

Jugdements on this topic

In case STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS VS. KAMAL SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER (2008) 8 SCC 612, has laid down the principles of review for review of the orders as under :

1.The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin / analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

2.The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.

3.The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.

4.An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).

Also Read- Promotion from Pcs/hcs to Ias Through Cat, Tribunal Chandigarh

5. An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
6. A decision / order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision / judgment of a coordinate or larger bench of the Tribunal or of a superior Court.
7. While considering an application   for review, the Tribunal  must  confine  its adjudication  with   reference to  material     which     was     available     at     the     time     of  initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
8. Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”

Also Read- Res Judicata in CAT Tribunal Chandigarh Cases

For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview  included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.

More 99888-17966.