Janmejay vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 12 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD Order Sheet Item no.: 11 M.A./6009/2025 (ALLAHABAD) [ DELAY CONDON APPL ] In O.A./1317/2026 COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT M.A./945/2026 Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 9 Order Dated: 12/11/2026 JANMEJAY Vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate :

For Respondent(s) Advocate : Order of The Tribunal Matter is taken up. Shri Awadh Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Navin Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, are present. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 6009/2025 and the objection filed thereto. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant's father was removed from service and, after his death on 09.12.2021, the applicant is claiming the retiral benefits legally payable to the deceased employee. It is further submitted that due to mental agony, illness and the circumstances arising after the death of his father, the applicant could not approach this Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel further submits that the retiral benefits payable to the deceased employee have not yet been released to the applicant and the applicant is pursuing a genuine claim. It is, therefore, contended that the delay in filing the Original Application deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice, so that the matter may be decided on its merits. Otherwise, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has filed the present Original Application on 25.11.2025, after a delay of about 26 years from the date of the order of removal from service passed in the year 1999. It is further submitted that, in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the applicant has stated that due to financial difficulties, he could not approach this Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that financial difficulties cannot, by themselves, be treated as a sufficient ground for condoning such an inordinate delay. It is further submitted that the applicant has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delay of about 26 years in challenging the removal order. The subsequent death of his father on 09.12.2021 and the claim for retiral benefits cannot explain the delay in challenging the removal order passed in 1999. Therefore, the delay is not properly explained and the Original Application is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents prays that the delay condonation application be rejected and the Original Application be dismissed as barred by limitation. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.

It is not disputed that the applicant's father was removed from service in the year 1999 and the applicant has filed the present Original Application on 25.11.2025. Thus, there is a considerable delay in approaching this Tribunal. However, the applicant has stated that due to financial difficulties, mental agony and illness, he could not approach this Tribunal earlier. It is also relevant that his father died on 09.12.2021 and the applicant is now claiming the retiral benefits allegedly payable to his deceased father. Considering the nature of the claim and the fact that the retiral benefits are stated to have not been released, I am of the view that the applicant should be given an opportunity to have his claim examined on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to take a lenient view. The delay in filing the Original Application is, therefore, condoned. The objection raised by the respondents on the ground of limitation does not call for rejection of the delay condonation application at this stage. Accordingly, Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 6009/2025 is allowed. The delay in filing the Original Application is condoned and the OA shall be treated as having been filed within the period of limitation. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the present Original Application. Heard learned counsel for the parties on original application. OA is disposed of. Detailed order is transcribed on separate sheet.

Justice Om Prakash VII Member (J) Manish Srivastava ( ps )