CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15378 OF 2006 ------- In the matter of an application under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. ------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, R.K. PURAM, WEST BLOCK-V, NEW DELHI. 2. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, RAJENDRA PATH, PATNA-19. 3. PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION), DROPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD. ….PETITIONERS Versus RAM KISHORE SHARMA, SON OF LATE CHANDRIKA SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOLHUA, P.O. BAKHARA, POLICE STATION SARAIYA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT RESIDING IN ASHOK NAGAR, ROAD NO.14/A, KANKARBAGH, PATNA. … RESPONDENTS ------ For the Petitioner : Dr. Pankaj (CGC) For the Respondent: None P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE K. MANDAL *** S. K. Katriar & K. K. Mandal,JJ. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure-4), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in R.A.No. 94 of 2005 with M.A. No. 580 of 2005(arising out of O.A.No.630 of 2003), whereby the review application, preferred by the present petitioners, has been rejected on the ground that the same was beyond time, and there is no power in the Tribunal in the scheme of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), to condone the delay in filing the review application. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The sole respondent, at the relevant point of time, was serving as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the 2 Controller of defence Accounts. A criminal case as well as a departmental proceeding were initiated against him. The former is still pending, whereas appropriate punishment was inflicted upon him in the departmental proceeding. Therefore, the respondent preferred the aforesaid O.A.No.630 of 2003, which was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 20.05.2005 (Annexure-1), whereby the authorities were directed to make payment of the amount of gratuity to him. Aggrieved by the order, the authorities preferred the aforesaid R.A.No. 94 of 2005, for review of that part of the order whereby the gratuity had been directed to be paid to the employee concerned. As stated hereinabove, the review application has been rejected on the ground that, in the scheme of the Act, the delay in filing a review application cannot be condoned. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The order of the learned Tribunal itself states that Clause (c) of sub-rule 1 of Rule 69 of CCS(Pension) Rules 1972, itself provides that no gratuity shall be paid to the government servant until conclusion of the departmental proceeding, or judicial proceeding. As stated hereinabove, the Tribunal has rejected the review application on the ground of delay, although it is stated that the provisions of rule 69(1 (c) of the CCS (Pension) Rule were overlooked while disposing of the original application. 5. In exercise of our extra-ordinary prerogative jurisdiction, we hereby set aside the order dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure-4), passed in R.A.No.94 of 2005 with M.A.No.580 of 2005. The order of the Tribunal dated 20.05.2005(Annexure-1), on the original application, is hereby modified to the extent that payment of gratuity shall not be made to the 3 respondent herein which shall abide the provision of rule 69(1) (c) of the Rules. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (S. K. Katriar) (Kishore K. Mandal) Patna High Court, Dated the 22nd day of April, 2010 HR/NAFR