Central Administrative Tribunal
Anil kumar maurya vs M/O RAILWAYS on 5 November 2026
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad ****
This is the 05th Day of November, 2026
Dy. No.269/2026
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Anil Kumar Maurya
………..Applicant
By Adv:
Shri M. Singh (Not present)
Versus
1.
Union of India & Others
……….… Respondents
By Adv.:
Shri Arun Kumar Gupta
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.
O R D E R
Case called out. None present for the applicant even in the revised call. However, Shri Arun Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the respondents, with a further prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. Since the Original Application registered as Dy. No.269/2026 has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the applicant has also filed a Delay Condonation Application seeking condonation of delay in filing the same.
4. From a perusal of the order sheets, it appears that the matter has been adjourned on several occasions at the request of learned counsel for the applicant. Further, vide order dated 16.04.2026, this Tribunal directed learned counsel for the applicant to explain as to how the real married brother of the deceased employee could be treated as a dependent for the purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds. On that date, learned counsel for the applicant sought time to explain the aforesaid aspect. SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
However, when the matter was subsequently listed on 05.05.2026, 20.05.2026, 23.07.2026, 05.08.2026 and 19.09.2026, none appeared on behalf of the applicant to explain the aforesaid issue. Today also, none has appeared on behalf of the applicant, even in the revised call.
5. In view of the continuous non-appearance on behalf of the applicant and the absence of any explanation for not pursuing the matter, the Delay Condonation Application is dismissed for non-prosecution. Resultantly, the Original Application, registered as D.A. No.269/2026 is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
6. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
7. No order as to costs. (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Judicial)
Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA