Railway Recruitment Cell vs ARJUN KUMAR PASWAN on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicants and Shri K.K. Ojha, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. M.A. No. 3417/2026 has been filed by the respondents with the prayer to condone the delay in filing the restoration application. In the affidavit, filed along with the aforesaid M.A., counsel for the applicant submitted that at the time of hearing he was busy in Court No. 81 in the Hon’ble High Court hence, could not appear before this Tribunal. It is also submitted that his Clerk could not mark the list and due to this fact also, he could not appear before this Tribunal. In the month of May, 2026 when the applicant contacted his counsel, he could not know about the status of matter being dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. It is submitted by the applicant that the delay in filing the restoration application is neither deliberate nor intentional hence, same may be condoned.

3. Per contra, the respondents have filed the objection along with two Misc. Applications. Misc. Application No. 4616 of 2026 has been filed by the respondents with the prayer to accept the objection on record. M.A. stands disposed of and objection is accepted on record. Misc. Application No. 4617 of 2026 has been filed by the respondents with the prayer to dismiss the restoration application. In the objection, the respondents submitted that earlier the case of applicant was conducted by Shri R.B. Pandey and now the restoration application along with delay condonation application has been filed by Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh without taking ‘no objection’ of earlier counsel present MAs have been filed.

4. In the reply to the objection, counsel for the applicant submitted that since from the very beginning he has been conducted the case on behalf of applicant as the O.A. was filed under his signature hence, it is wrong to say that he is the new counsel on behalf of applicant.

5. After hearing the counsel for parties and perusal of record as well as nature of relief, we are convinced with the arguments of counsel for applicant that since from very beginning he has been conducting the case on behalf of applicant and grounds taken in the accompanying affidavit with the delay condonation application are deemed to be sufficient hence, Delay Condonation Application No. 3417/2026 is allowed and the delay in filing the Restoration Application is condoned.

6. Misc. Application No. 3418/2026 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to recall the Order dated 01.12.2023 and to restore the O.A. to its original number. Considering the grounds mentioned in the accompanying affidavit and nature of relief, we allow the M.A. No.

3418/2026 and Order dated 01.12.2023 is recalled and O.A. No. 448 of 2017 is restored to its original number. Order on O.A.

7. It appears from perusal of pleadings that the counter and rejoinder have been exchanged by the parties’ counsel hence, pleadings in this matter are complete. Accordingly, list this case for final hearing on 02.12.2026.

(Manju Pandey)

(Rajnish Kumar Rai)

Member – A

Member – J

/M.M/