Monu Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

Om Prakash – Vii, Member (J)

Heard Shri Satyajit Mukherji, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents on Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1130 of 2025.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that although the applicants have approached this Tribunal in the year 2025, similarly situated persons had earlier approached this Tribunal through O.A. No. 1484/2024 and O.A. No. 930/2018. Both those Original Applications were allowed, and relief was granted to the applicants therein. Referring to the Delay Condonation Application and the facts stated therein, it was further submitted that Applicant No. 2 had contacted with the applicant No. 1 for approaching the Tribunal upon receiving a letter dated 12.10.2018. However, due to the death of Applicant No. 1's mother and a severe brain stroke suffered by Applicant No. 2's father during that period, they were unable to take timely action. It was also submitted that due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the applicants could not approach the Tribunal. The applicants had initially engaged Shri Pramod Kumar Khare, Advocate, and paid him some amount to file the OA. They were informed that the OA had been filed. However, after the demise of Shri Pramod Kumar Khare, they discovered that no such OA had actually been filed. Thereafter, the applicants contacted the present counsel and filed the OA. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that the delay in filing the OA is not intentional or deliberate but due to the genuine reasons explained in the Delay Condonation Application. He also pointed out that the limitation period during the COVID-19 pandemic was suspended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and therefore, the delay is only for a few years. It was also submitted that the applicants’ case is similar to that of the applicants in the earlier decided OAs. Hence, it was prayed that the delay in filing the OA be condoned so that the matter can be decided on merits.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. He submitted that although the length of delay is not material yet in the present case the applicants have not satisfactorily explained the delay. He further argued that the applicants approached the Tribunal only after relief was granted to similarly situated persons and that they had been sleeping over their rights. Therefore, he contended that the Delay Condonation Application is not liable to be allowed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated in the Delay Condonation Application, we are of the view that although there is some delay in filing the OA, the same has been sufficiently explained. In the interest of justice and to decide the matter on merits, we find it appropriate to condone the delay. Accordingly, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed and the delay in filing the OA is hereby condoned.

The Registry is directed to allot a regular Original Application number.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on MA No. 1129/2025.

MA No. 1129/2025 has been filed by the applicants seeking permission to pursue the matter jointly.

Since the cause of action and relief sought by the applicants are similar, MA No. 1129/2025 is allowed, and the applicants are permitted to pursue the matter jointly.

The matter requires consideration.

Admit.

Six weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the respondents to file a counter affidavit. Two weeks thereafter are granted to the applicants for filing a rejoinder, if any.

List this case before the Registrar for completion of pleadings on 17.12.2025.