In short. A review application asks the same CAT bench to correct its own order for a mistake plain on the record: a wrong date, an overlooked document, an argued point never dealt with. It is not a second hearing. You get 30 days from receiving the copy of the order, and courts have differed on whether that can be stretched, so treat it as fixed. Most reviews are decided in chambers within weeks or a few months. This week, read the order against your paper book and decide whether the problem is a visible slip or a disagreement on law.
Is this your situation?
- Your OA was dismissed or partly allowed, and the order states a fact about you that is simply wrong.
- A document you filed, and can find in the paper book, is not mentioned anywhere in the order.
- You argued a point at the hearing, it is noted in the order, and then nothing is said about it.
- The order grants relief from a date, or to a person, that does not match the record.
- You received the copy of the order less than 30 days ago, or you are close to that line.
- The department has filed a review against an order you won, and you have been served notice.
- You were not a party to an OA, but its result has changed your seniority or pay.
The 30 days run from the copy, not from the hearing
Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 says a review application will not be entertained unless it is filed within thirty days from the date the applicant receives a copy of the order. That date is the one on which the registry's copy reached you or your counsel, or the date you collected a certified copy, whichever came first. Note it down today. If the order was pronounced in open court on one day and uploaded later, the upload is not the trigger; receipt of the copy is.
People lose reviews by assuming they have the same breathing room as an Original Application, where Section 21 allows a year and lets the tribunal condone delay (see filing late with a Section 21 application). A review sits on a much shorter leash. If you are already past three weeks, stop collecting opinions and start drafting, because the application needs an affidavit and an annexed copy of the order, and both take a day or two to put together properly.
One more point on timing. If you are also thinking of a writ in the High Court, the time a review takes will later have to be explained to that court. A review filed in good faith on a real error is a sound explanation. A review filed only to buy time is not, and the High Court can tell the difference.
Mistakes a review is meant to fix
- A wrong fact taken from nowhere. The order says you joined in 2009 when every document on file shows 1999, and the dismissal turns on that date. Pointing to the service book extract in the paper book is enough to show the slip.
- A document on record that the order overlooked. The tribunal holds that you never made a representation, but the representation and the department's acknowledgement are at Annexure A-7. That is the classic case for review.
- A point argued and not decided. The order records that you raised limitation as a continuing wrong, then decides the case without a word on it. Silence on a pleaded and argued ground is an error that shows on the face of the order.
- A clerical or arithmetical slip. Relief is granted from 1 January 2019 when the operative paragraph earlier speaks of 1 January 2016, or the name of the applicant is wrong in the final direction. Some of these can also be cured by a short miscellaneous application for correction.
- New evidence you could not have produced earlier. A document that was in the department's custody, that you asked for and did not get, and that turns up after the order. You must show you tried to get it before the hearing; a document you simply forgot does not count.
- A mistake about who the parties are. The order binds a respondent who was never served, or leaves out one who was. Errors of this kind make the order hard to implement and are usually corrected on review.
What a review application cannot do
- Re-argue the case. If the bench read the rules one way and you read them another, that is a disagreement on law. The remedy is a writ, not a review.
- Rely on a judgment delivered after your order. A later Supreme Court or High Court decision taking a different view is not a ground for reviewing an order already passed. It may help a fresh representation or another employee's case, but it does not reopen yours.
- Bring in arguments you never made. A ground that was available at the hearing and not pressed cannot be added through review.
- Correct an order that is merely wrong. The courts draw a line between an order that is erroneous and one that has an error apparent on the face of the record. Only the second is reviewable.
- Be filed twice. Once a review against an order has been decided, no second review of the same order is entertained, and there is no review of an order rejecting a review.
The provisions behind a review, read together
Section 22(3)(f), Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Section 22 lets the tribunal regulate its own procedure and frees it from the Code of Civil Procedure, but sub-section (3) gives it some of a civil court's powers. Clause (f) is the power to review its own decisions. Because the clause borrows from the civil court, the Supreme Court has read it as carrying the same limits that apply to a civil court's review.
Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
This is where the grounds come from: discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence; a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason, which the courts read as a reason of the same kind as the first two.
Rule 17, CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987
The procedure: filing within 30 days of receiving the copy; hearing ordinarily by the same bench that passed the order, unless the Chairman directs another bench for recorded reasons; disposal by circulation, meaning in chambers without oral hearing, unless the bench orders otherwise; no second review in the same matter; and a duly sworn affidavit stating the source of knowledge for each statement.
State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (Supreme Court, 2008)
The judgment most often cited on tribunal reviews. It holds that the error must be self-evident and not one that has to be found through a long chain of reasoning, that an erroneous decision cannot be corrected in the guise of review, and that a later judgment of a larger bench or a superior court is not a ground. Read it before you draft; most review applications that fail break one of its rules.
K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 1997)
A person who was not a party to the OA but whose service rights are hit by the order, such as an employee pushed down a seniority list, can seek review. This matters in seniority and promotion cases, where the people most affected are often not impleaded.
Can the tribunal accept a review filed after 30 days?
The honest answer is that it depends on which High Court's view your bench follows, so you should never plan on it. A Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court took the view in 2002 that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be applied to condone delay in a review. In April 2023 a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, in Union of India v. Chanchal Nag, held the opposite: the tribunal is a creature of statute, the Act gives it power to condone delay only for Original Applications under Section 21(3), and so a review beyond 30 days cannot be entertained at all.
In practice, many benches will look at a short delay with a convincing reason, such as the order copy reaching a retiree at a changed address, and some will not look at it at all. If you are late, file the review with a separate application explaining each day of delay, supported by documents such as the postal envelope or the registry's dispatch record, and be ready to go to the High Court by writ on the main order if the review is thrown out as time-barred.
If the 30 days are well gone and the error is serious, a writ in the High Court against the original order is often the cleaner path. The High Court can correct a manifest error on the record as part of its writ jurisdiction, and there is no 30-day bar there, though delay still has to be explained.
Who decides the review, and whether you get a hearing
The review goes to the same bench, ideally the same members, who passed the order. That is deliberate. The question is whether they made a visible mistake, and the people best placed to see that are the ones who wrote the order. If a member has retired or been moved, the Chairman can direct that the review be heard by another bench, and the registry will tell you how it is being listed.
Rule 17 provides for disposal by circulation. In plain terms the members read the review application in chambers and decide whether it deserves notice to the other side. Many are dismissed at this stage with a short order. If the bench sees something in it, notice goes to the department, a reply may be called for, and the matter is listed for an oral hearing.
This is why the application has to make its point on paper. You may not get a chance to explain it in court. The first page should show the error in two or three sentences, with the page number of the paper book where the correct fact or document sits. If a member has to search for the error, the review usually fails.
Filing a review application, step by step
These are the stages in the order Advocate B.K. Singh works through them when a client brings an order with a fresh mistake in it.
Fix the date you received the copy
Find the envelope, the email from the registry, or the date on which your counsel collected the copy. Write the 30th day on the top of the order in pen. Everything else is planned backwards from that date.
Read the order against the paper book
Go paragraph by paragraph. Each fact stated in the order should be traced to a page in the OA, the reply, the rejoinder or the written notes. Mark every statement that cannot be traced, or that contradicts a document on file.
Sort the errors into two piles
One pile for errors that can be shown by pointing at a page. One pile for disagreements about what the rules or judgments mean. Only the first pile goes into the review. The second pile is kept for a writ, if one is needed.
Draft the application short and precise
Identify the order, set out the error, show where the record says otherwise, and explain how the error affected the result. State the relief exactly: recall of the order and rehearing, or modification of a named paragraph. A review that runs to forty pages tells the bench it is an appeal in disguise.
Swear the affidavit
Rule 17 requires an affidavit that says which statements are from your own knowledge, which come from records, and which are based on legal advice. A retiree who cannot travel can swear it before a notary or oath commissioner near home and send the original.
File in the registry of the bench that passed the order
File through the tribunal's e-filing system or physically, as that bench accepts, with the copy of the order, the relevant pages of the record and the fee. Keep the diary number. If the registry points out defects, cure them quickly, because a defect left uncured can make a timely filing look late.
Watch the list and respond if notice issues
Check the bench's cause list. If notice is issued, the department may file a reply, and you may need a short rejoinder. At the oral hearing, if there is one, the argument should take minutes, not an hour.
Keep a writ in mind while the review is pending. If it is dismissed, you will want to move quickly in the High Court, and having the writ grounds drafted from the second pile saves weeks.
How long a review takes and what it costs
| Stage | Typical time | Costs in general terms |
|---|---|---|
| Reading the order and deciding on review | 2 to 7 days after the copy arrives | Professional fee for advice, agreed in writing at the first meeting |
| Drafting, affidavit and filing | Must be complete within 30 days of receiving the copy | Tribunal fee: a small fixed fee (Rs 50 under Rule 7 for an application; check the current figure and mode with the registry), plus notary, typing and copying |
| Consideration by circulation | A few weeks to a few months, depending on the bench's workload | No extra court fee |
| Notice, reply and hearing (only if notice issues) | Two to six months more on average, longer at busy benches | Fee for drafting a rejoinder and appearing at the hearing, by stage |
| Rehearing of the OA if the review is allowed | Varies; sometimes heard the same day, sometimes listed afresh | Fee for the rehearing, agreed separately |
| Writ if the review fails | File as soon as possible after the review order | High Court court fee and drafting costs, discussed before you decide |
Papers to collect before drafting
From the tribunal
- Copy of the final order, with proof of the date you received it
- The complete paper book: OA, annexures, counter reply, rejoinder
- Any written submissions or case law compilations filed by either side
- Order sheets of the hearings, showing who appeared and what was recorded
From your own records
- The document the order overlooked or misread, with its page number in the paper book
- Correspondence showing you asked for any document the department withheld
- Service book extract, pay slips or PPO if the error is about a date or an amount
- Identity proof and address for the affidavit
If you were not a party to the OA
- The order that has affected you, and when and how you came to know of it
- Your seniority list position or pay order before and after
- Proof that you were not impleaded or served
Where the review is filed
A review is always filed at the bench that passed the order, whichever bench that was. If your OA was decided at the Lucknow Bench and you have since moved to Delhi on transfer, the review still goes to Lucknow. The territorial rules in Rule 6 of the procedure rules decide where an OA is filed; they do not move a decided case.
For cases heard at the Principal Bench in New Delhi, the review is filed at Copernicus Marg. Uttarakhand cases have been with the Principal Bench since the notification of 18 July 2023, so a Dehradun employee whose OA was decided after that date files the review in New Delhi, even if the hearing took place at a circuit sitting. Uttar Pradesh cases split between the Allahabad Bench at Prayagraj and the Lucknow Bench, and again the review follows the bench that decided.
E-filing is available at most benches and saves a trip, which matters for a pensioner in Bastar or a postal employee in a hill district. As reported in October 2026, the tribunal has issued a circular to bring filing practices across benches into line, including searchable, bookmarked PDFs. Check with the bench registry how it wants a review application uploaded before you rely on it.
A made-up example: one wrong year in Jodhpur
Here's a made-up example. Bhanwar Lal retired in 2023 as a Junior Engineer with the Military Engineer Services in Jodhpur. He filed an OA at the Jodhpur Bench claiming his third MACP upgradation, arguing that he had completed thirty years of regular service before retirement. The tribunal dismissed the OA, recording that he joined in 2001 and so could not have completed thirty years by 2023.
His appointment letter and the first page of his service book, both at Annexure A-2 of the paper book, show he joined on 14 March 1991. The department's own reply had not disputed that date. The number 2001 seems to have crept in from the date of his first financial upgradation, which was also mentioned in the OA.
His counsel filed a review on the 22nd day after the copy arrived. The application was four pages long. Its first paragraph said only this: the order turns on the date of joining; the order records 2001; Annexure A-2 at pages 18 and 19 shows 1991, and the respondents admitted it at paragraph 4 of their reply. The bench issued notice, heard both sides briefly, recalled the order and listed the OA for fresh hearing on merits.
Note what the review did not try to do. Bhanwar Lal also believed the tribunal had misread a DoPT office memorandum on the benchmark for MACP. That was a question of law, and it was kept aside for a writ if needed. Mixing it into the review would have made a clean error look like an attempt to reargue.
Review or High Court writ: choosing in the first week
Advocate B.K. Singh's first question when someone brings a fresh CAT order is simple: can you show me the mistake on one page? If the answer is yes, a review is usually quicker and cheaper than a writ, and it goes to people who already know the file. If the answer needs a paragraph of reasoning about rules, judgments and their interaction, it is a writ case.
Some orders carry both kinds of problem. In that case, the usual course is a narrow review on the visible error, filed within 30 days, with the legal grounds held back. If the review succeeds, the OA is reheard and the legal points can be argued again at that rehearing. If it fails, the writ is filed promptly against the original order and the review order together. The page on a writ petition against a tribunal order explains how the High Court looks at such cases, and the guide on deciding between review and a writ works through borderline examples.
What you should avoid is filing a writ while the review is pending without telling the High Court. A writ court will ask why you went to two forums at once on the same order, and it may simply send you back to wait for the tribunal.
When the department files the review against you
Departments do file reviews, usually when the order directs payment of arrears to a large group or when the ministry thinks a fact about the scheme was misunderstood. If you are served notice of such a review, do not ignore it. File a short reply showing that the department is rearguing the case or relying on a judgment that came later, both of which Kamal Sengupta rules out.
Watch also for a review being used as a reason not to pay. A pending review does not by itself suspend the order. Unless the bench has stayed its order while considering the review, the department remains bound to implement it within the time given. If the time runs out, your remedies are on the page about getting a CAT order implemented.
A review by a third party is a different matter. If a junior colleague who was not impleaded files a review saying the order pushed him down the seniority list without hearing him, the tribunal will usually take it seriously, because his right to be heard is real. The answer in such cases is often to accept a rehearing with him on board rather than fight the review, since an order passed behind his back is vulnerable anyway.
After the review is decided
If the review is allowed, the tribunal either corrects the order directly, where the mistake was clerical, or recalls the order and hears the OA again. A recall puts you back where you were before the final hearing. You may file fresh written notes, and the department may too. The new order replaces the old one, and the 30 days and the writ options start afresh from it.
If the review is dismissed, the original order stands. You cannot file a second review, and you cannot seek review of the dismissal. The next step, if there is one, is a writ before the Division Bench of the High Court that has jurisdiction over your bench. The writ challenges the original order and, where useful, the review order as well. Do not wait long; the High Court will count the time from the original order and want an explanation for each month.
Some people take a review dismissal as the end of the road when it is not. A review is rejected for being outside its narrow scope, which says nothing about whether the original order is right in law. Many writs succeed on points the tribunal refused to consider on review.
Things that make a review fail
- Rearguing the merits. The application repeats the OA's grounds paragraph by paragraph. The bench sees it in a minute and dismisses it by circulation.
- No page reference. The application says the tribunal ignored a document but does not say where it is in the record. Members will not hunt for it.
- Citing a later judgment. A Supreme Court ruling delivered after your order is not a review ground, however closely it fits your facts.
- Missing the 30 days by a few days. The most painful failures are reviews that were right on substance and late by a week.
- A weak affidavit. An affidavit that does not say which facts come from records and which from legal advice is defective under Rule 17, and defects take time to cure.
- Filing the review only to delay. When the review is weak and the real plan is a writ, the time spent on the review is hard to justify before the High Court.
How this plays out for different readers
For a serving Group C employee, such as a clerk in an income tax office or a postman, the usual review is about a date, a pay level or an overlooked representation, and the stakes are a promotion or an increment. These reviews are worth filing when the error is clean, because the alternative, a writ, costs more and takes longer. For a Group A officer the issue is more often an overlooked document in a disciplinary file or a DPC proceeding, and the officer should expect the department to resist hard.
Retirees and family pensioners face a specific risk: the copy of the order may go to an old address, or to counsel who has stopped following the case. The 30 days run from receipt, so keep proof of when the copy actually reached you. Widows pursuing family pension should check that the order names the right person and the right date of death; small slips in these orders cause months of delay at the pension office.
Railway and postal employees should check that the order names the correct zonal railway, division or postal circle as the respondent, because an order directed at the wrong office is easy for the right office to ignore. Job candidates whose OA failed because the tribunal misread a cut-off date or a category should move fast; recruitment cycles close, and a review that succeeds after the panel has expired may give you very little.
What to do in the next few days
Find out exactly when you received the order, and count 30 days. Get the full paper book, either from your counsel or by applying for copies at the registry. Read the order with a pencil and mark each sentence that does not match the record. Ask yourself, for each mark, whether it can be shown on one page.
If you have one or two clear marks, a review is probably worth filing. If all your marks are about the tribunal's reading of the law, a review will waste your 30 days and you should start on the writ instead. If you are unsure, the questions people ask most at this stage are collected on the page about hearings, orders and review in CAT.
If you would like your order and paper book read against each other before the 30 days run out, or want updates on how benches are treating late reviews, contact Advocate B.K. Singh with a copy of the order and the date you received it.
Frequently asked questions
How many days do I have to file a review in CAT?
Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 gives 30 days from the date you receive a copy of the order. Some High Courts have held that the tribunal cannot condone delay beyond that, so treat it as a fixed limit. Keep proof of the date the copy reached you.
Will the tribunal hear me in person on a review?
Not necessarily. A review is ordinarily decided by circulation, which means the members read it in chambers. Only if they think it has substance is notice issued to the other side and the matter listed for oral hearing.
Can I file a review because the Supreme Court has since decided the point in my favour?
No. A judgment delivered after your order is not a ground for review, according to the Supreme Court in Kamal Sengupta. You may be able to use it in a fresh representation in some cases, or in a writ if you are still within a reasonable time.
Is it better to file a review or go straight to the High Court?
If the mistake can be shown on a single page of the record, a review is usually faster and cheaper. If your complaint is about how the tribunal read the law, a writ is the right remedy. Some orders justify a narrow review first and a writ only if that fails.
Can the department refuse to implement the order because it has filed a review?
A pending review does not suspend the order unless the bench stays it. If the time for compliance has passed and there is no stay, you can move for execution or contempt.
I was not a party to the OA but the order affects my seniority. Can I seek review?
Yes. The Supreme Court held in K. Ajit Babu (1997) that a person affected by a tribunal's order, though not a party, can apply for review. Act soon after you learn of the order and explain when and how you came to know.
What happens if my review is dismissed?
The original order stands, and you cannot file another review. Your remaining route is a writ in the High Court with jurisdiction over that bench, challenging the original order and, where useful, the review order.
Do I need a lawyer to file a review application?
You can file it yourself, as you could the OA. The affidavit requirements and the need to show the error in a few lines make it worth having the draft checked, since a review that fails cannot be filed again.