Central Administrative Tribunal
naaz mohammad allaie vs GENERAL ADMINITRATIVE DEPARTMENT on 27 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR
Order Sheet
Item no.: 6
M.A./886/2026 (SRINAGAR)
[ CONDONATION OF DELAY ]
In
O.A./316/2023
RETIRAL BENEFITS
With
M.A./887/2026
RESTORATION
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment: 3
Order Dated: 27/10/2026
NAAZ MOHAMMAD ALLAIE
Vs
GENERAL ADMINITRATIVE DEPARTMENT
For Applicant(s) Advocate : MR. M ASHRAF WANI
For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. RAIS UD DIN GANAIE, DAG
Order of The Tribunal
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicant has filed M.A. No. 886/2026 seeking condonation of delay of 302 days in filing M.A. No. 887/2026 for restoration of O.A. No. 316/2023, which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 29.08.2025. The applicant submits that his counsel had appeared through virtual mode, but due to an alleged technical error, the appearance was not reflected on record, resulting in the dismissal of the Original Application. It is further submitted that the applicant remained under the bona fide belief that the matter was pending adjudication and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Original Application challenges Government Order No. 599-JK(GAD) of 2021 dated 09.07.2021, whereby the services of the applicant were dispensed with.
2. Having considered the submissions made and the grounds urged in the application, this Tribunal finds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause warranting condonation of the delay. The delay of 302 days remains unexplained by any cogent or satisfactory justification. The plea regarding the alleged technical error in recording the appearance of learned counsel does not adequately explain the prolonged delay in approaching this Tribunal for restoration of the Original Application. Further, the plea that the applicant remained ill during the relevant period is neither supported by any documentary evidence nor pleaded in the application for condonation of delay.
3. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that delay cannot be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause. A liberal approach towards condonation of delay does not dispense with the statutory requirement of establishing sufficient cause. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed.
4. Accordingly, M.A. No. 886/2026 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, M.A. No. 887/2026 seeking restoration of O.A. No. 316/2023 is also dismissed. The dismissal of the Original Application vide order dated 29.08.2025 shall, therefore, remain undisturbed.
5. No order as to costs. Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )