fayaz ahmad bhat vs SHER-I-KASHMIR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES on 4 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR Order Sheet Item no.: 10 M.A./1508/2026 (SRINAGAR) [ RESTORATION ] In T.A./99/2025 REGULARISATION Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 04/11/2026 FAYAZ AHMAD BHAT Vs SHER-I-KASHMIR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES

For Applicant(s) Advocate : MR. RAHIL NOOR VICE MR. S A MAKROO

For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. RAIS UD DIN GANAIE, DAG VICE MR. SYED MUSAIB, DAG Order of The Tribunal Hon'ble Member (J) has joined the proceedings through virtual mode. Heard learned counsel for the parties on M.A. No. 1508/2026, seeking restoration of T.A. No. 99/2025, which came to be dismissed in default of appearance vide order dated 29.09.2026. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he could not appear on 29.09.2026 either through virtual mode due to internet connectivity issues or physically on account of his ill health. He submits that his non-appearance was neither wilful nor intentional but was due to the aforesaid sufficient reasons. Accordingly, he seeks restoration of the main T.A. for adjudication on merits.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the application on the ground that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained and that the applicant has failed to establish sufficient cause warranting restoration of the T.A. Accordingly, dismissal of the application is sought. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The explanation furnished by the applicant for non-appearance of his counsel on 29.09.2026, due to internet connectivity issues and his ill health, constitutes 'sufficient cause'. There is nothing on record to suggest that the default was deliberate or intentional or that the applicant intended to abandon the proceedings. Furthermore, the restoration application has been filed on 20.10.2026 which is within a period of limitaiton. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has consistently held that where the non-appearance of a litigant or his counsel is neither deliberate nor intentional, the litigant should ordinarily not be deprived of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. Procedural rules are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive rights on technical grounds. Accordingly, where 'sufficient cause' is shown, an endeavour should be made to facilitate adjudication on merits rather than non- suit a party on account of a procedural default. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find sufficient grounds to allow the present application. Accordingly, M.A. No. 1508/2026 is allowed. Consequently, T.A. No. 99/2025 is restored to its original number and shall proceed in accordance with law. The pleadings in the main T.A. are complete. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to furnish a second hard copy of the T.A. for the Member Bench before the Registry within one week. List T.A. No. 99/2025 on 12.02.2027 for arguments.

Prasant Kumar Member (A) Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Shubham Sharma ( steno 'd' )