Central Administrative Tribunal
Santosh Kumar Pattnaik vs ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA on 2 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 CUTTACK Order Sheet Item no.: 19 O.A./64/2022 (CUTTACK) [ ENGAGEMENT OF CASUAL WORKER ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 22 Order Dated: 02/11/2026 SANTOSH KUMAR PATTNAIK Vs ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA
For Applicant(s) Advocate : -
For Respondent(s) Advocate : Ms. S.B.Das Order of The Tribunal This OA has been filed by the applicant on 11.02.2022 declaring his age as 56 years.
2. The prayer of the applicant in this OA is to direction to Resp. No. 5 to allow him to work as casual labourer and pay him 1/30th pay scale.
3. The matter was listed for the first item on 14.02.2022. Ld Counsel for the respondents objected the sustainability and maintainability of this OA on the ground of limitation and, considering the said submission, this Bench did not admit the OA and only issued notice to the respondents to file their reply. Respondents filed their preliminary counter on 17.08.2022. Applicant filed rejoinder on 03.11.2022, reply to which was filed by the respondents on 19.06.2024.
4. Thereafter, the mater was listed on 15.07.2025. Since, none represented the applicant, the matter was adjourned to 13.08.2025.
the mater was listed on 14.08.2025 and on the request of Ld. Counsel for the applicant, the matter was adjourned to 01.09.2025. On 01.09.2025, the matter was adjourned to 09.10.2025. On 09.10.2025, since none represented the applicant, the matter was listed to 11.11.2025. On 11.11.2025, the matter was adjourned to 10.12.2025. On 10.12.2025, the matter was adjourned to 14.01.2026. ON 14.01.2026 since none represented the applicant the matter was adjourned to 19.02.2026 with specific order that the copy of the order be sent to the applicant by Post. On 19.02.2026, none represented the applicant, however, one Mr. R.R.Sahu, Ld. Advocate, appeared and submitted that he has been instructed by the applicant to appear in this case and prayed time to file his power and, on his request, the matte was adjourned to 16.03.2026. On 16.03.2026 none appeared for the applicant and this Bench reluctantly adjourned the matter to 22.04.2026 with specific mention that in case none appears, the matter will be decided in terms of Rule 15 and 16 of CAT (Procedure) rules, 1987.
5. Matter was listed on 22.04.2026 and adjoined to 23.06.2026. ON 23.06.2026, matter was adjourned to 02.07.2026. On 02.07.2026, the mater was adjourned to 31.07.026. On 31.07.2026, matter was adjourned to 24.08.2026. On 24.08.2026 none represented the applicant and the matter was adjourned to 17.09.2026. On 17.09.2026, none represented the applicant and the matter was adjourned to 16.10.2026. On 31.10. 2026, matter was adjourned to 02.11.2026.
6. It is found that no fresh power has been filed by Sri R.R.Sahu, as undertaken by him on 19.02.2026. It is also seen that this OA was filed on behalf of the applicant through Advocates namely Pronoy Mohanty, P.K.Pasayat and Sri S.N.Dash but none of them appeared on the 15.07.2025, 09.10.2025, 14.01.2026, 19.02.2026, 16.03.2026, 22.04.2026, 24.08.2026 and on 17.09.2026. The applicant also did not take any steps to pursue the matter despite sending him the notice.
7. Today, one of the Learned Advocates, who does not have the power appeared and sought time, which was not acceded to and giving him opportunity to call the concerned counsel to place his case. Thereafter, when the matter was called for the second time, none of the Learned Advocates, whose names appeared in the Vakalatnama turned up.
8. It is seen that the prayer of the applicant for direction to allow him to work as casual labourer declaring his age as 56 years as on the date of filing of this OA on 11.02.2022 and by efflux of time, he must have attained the age of 60 years, which is the upper age limit even for engagement on casual basis. In the aforesaid background, it is established that the applicant is no more interested to pursue this case. Hence, this OA is dismissed for non- prosecution. No costs.
9. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant by Speed Post in the address given by the applicant in the cause title besides making the copies of this order available to Ld. Counsel for both the sides. Pramod Kumar Das Member (A) Kalpeswar Behera ( ps )