Central Administrative Tribunal
MS HEERA RAJU MAGAR vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 4 November 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Order Sheet Item no.: 10 O.A./866/2023 (AURANGABAD) [ APAR ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 22 Order Dated: 04/11/2026 MS HEERA RAJU MAGAR Vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. Hamid Patel For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. Sachin Patil Order of The Tribunal M.A. 1116/2023 We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents on the application for condonation of the delay.
2. The impugned order was passed on 11th August, 2022. Applicant received it on 13th August, 2022. The applicant ought to have filed this application on or before 14th August, 2023. He filed the application on 19th October, 2023. Thus, there is delay of 63 days in preferring the application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in view of the allegations made in Para 3.(b) of the application for condonation of the delay.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that travelling from Pune to Ahmednagar cannot be a cause much less sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in as much as the applicant was transferred three months after the passing of impugned order. He has placed reliance on the case of H. Guruswamy and Others vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, in which it is held thus:- "The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applciant is a lady.
5. Having regard to the allegations made in para 3.(b) of the application for condonation of the delay, we find that sufficient cause is made out having regard to the length of the delay. Application is, therefore, allowed.
6. M.A. 223/2025 for taking reply to rejoinder on record is allowed. Reply to rejoinder is taken on record.
7. Stand over to 13th January, 2027 for final hearing.
Sangam Narain Srivastava Member (A) Justice M.G.Sewlikar Member (J) Nicky Kumari ( )