Review

You can file an appeal against the CAT judgment before high court.

Appeals against Orders: The orders of Central Administrative Tribunal are challenged by way of Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution before respective High Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench of the Tribunal is situated.

CAT has powers to review its own orders. But review petitions are admitted only in exceptional cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 

What is the alleged "contradiction"? 

What is the OA No.? Which Bench?

The details of the case asked by you is as follows :-

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI

(CIRCUIT SITTING AT NAINITAL)

O.A. NO. 534/2018

ORDER DATED 19 OCTOBER 2023

SMT. NEERA DUTTA W/O SHRI AMAR NATH DUTTA

VERSUS

1. UNION OF INDIA

2. SURVEYOR GENERAL OF INDIA

3. ADD. SURVEYOR GENERAL, SPECIALIZED ZONE

4. DIRECTOR, GEODETIC & RESEARCH BRANCH

COPY OF JUDGEMENT IS ATTACHED HEREWITH FOR REFERENCE.

AN EARLY ACTION AT YOUR END IS REQUESTED.

One attachment • Scanned by Gmail

You have sent the judgment but have not mentioned the contradiction that you observed. 

By reading the judgment it  will not be possible to know how you are aggrieved by this judgment.

In any case if the judgment aggrieves you, then you have no option for review, instead you may have to approach high court with a writ appeal under article 226 of the Indian constitution

Since there is no contradiction in the judgment / order passed by CAT, what do you propose to be reviewed ?

Review of an order / judgment has very limited scope which generally (99.9%) fails.

Please read page 8 charge 1 was not proved by IO regarding pecuniary benefits regarding reimbursement of Medical treatment but in page 13 CAT says it is a proved charge i.e. memorandum is proved

The Order of the CAT is based on assumptions and presumptions, as advanced by the applicant (who appeared party-in person) and the respondents. It is a case of missing the woods for the trees in as much basic tenents as to the "Concessions for the Families" as notified under the CS(MA) Rules have not been pleaded or considered. So also, the aspectof "wholly or partially proved" has been misconceived. 

It appears that fault, primarily, has been that applicant had not put up a proper case based on the provisions of  the CS(MA) Rules and the Notifications thereunder.