AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per:Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
By way of MA No. 126/2026, filed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“A. Allow the present application and condone the delay in filing the accompanying Original Application in the interest of justice; and
B. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
It is the case of the applicants that by way of the accompanying OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have challenged the orders dated 15.02.2018, 27.03.2018 and rejection order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the respondents. It is the admitted case of the applicants that, keeping in view the impugned rejection order dated 30.10.2023, the statutory limitation period of one year expired on 30.10.2024 and, therefore, there is a delay of approximately one year and three months in filing of the accompanying OA.
Further, it is the case of the applicants that they were working as contractual employees under respondent No. 3 and, vide the impugned orders, their contractual employment was dispensed with. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the requirement for the applicants to approach this Tribunal arose in view of Advertisement No. 03/2025 dated 13.12.2025 (Annexure A-16) issued to fill vacancies without regularizing the existing staff, which compelled the applicants to submit a representation dated 16.12.2025 (Annexure A-17). Such representation has not been considered and disposed of by the respondents. Thus, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of the accompanying OA along with the present MA.
It is further pleaded in the MA that the applicants come from an economically weaker background and have been struggling for their rights since 2011 and, if the delay is not condoned, they will suffer irreparable loss and their rightful claim would have been defeated purely on technical grounds. It is also pleaded that in view of orders dated 31.05.2025 and 10.09.2025 in WP(C) No. 853/2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the applicants legitimately expected similar relief without litigation. In this background, learned counsel for the applicants submits that according to the settled principles of law that the expression “sufficient cause” under Section 21 (3) of the Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.
The matter was last listed on 07.09.2026. At the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the matter was posted for today. When it was put to the learned counsel for the applicant as to how this MA is maintainable when the same has not even been verified by all the applicants except one, Nuruzamma Badiuzzama Sheikh (applicant no. 2), as well as the fact that the present MA is not supported by a duly signed affidavit as required under the provisions of Rule 8(4) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has no instructions to make any further submission and requests that the order may be passed on the basis of the pleadings available on record and the factual matrix of the case.
On the other hand, Mr. Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by inviting our attention to the assertions made in paragraph 6 of the reply to the MA, has argued that the applicants have sought to justify the delay in filing of the accompanying OA on the basis of the allegation that the issue constitutes a continuous cause of action, which is misconceived and contrary to the settled law, as the cause of action in the present matter clearly arose from the dates of the impugned orders, i.e. 15.02.2018, 27.03.2018 and 30.10.2023, at the latest when the representations were rejected.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
Rule 8(4) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 reads as under:
“(4)Where the applicant seeks condonation of delay, he shall file a separate application supported by an affidavit.”
It is an admitted case of the applicants that the present MA has not even been verified by all the three applicants and the same has been verified only by one applicant, i.e. applicant No. 2. Further, the MA is not supported by any affidavit of even one of the applicants, which is mandatorily required in terms of Rule 8(4) of the aforesaid Rules. It is misconceived that, if the applicants had been working all along for 11 years and their services were dispensed with vide the impugned orders, the cause of action accrued for filing of the present OA for regularization in the year 2023 and also thereafter.
It is also misconceived that, in view of any interim order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and that too in writ petitions filed in the year 2025, a fresh cause of action has accrued to the applicants and/or the same has given a legitimate expectation to the applicants that, in view of the interim order passed in the said writ petitions, the applicants were also supposed to be given the benefit of the interim order under reference. Further, the mandatory provisions of the procedural Rules cannot be construed as mere technicalities.
In light of the above position, the present MA is found to have been based on misconceived grounds and not filed in accordance with the relevant Rules. The MA is found to be bereft of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. We order accordingly. The MA and the OA stand dismissed.
Registry is directed to assign an appropriate number to the OA.MA No. 125/2026 also stands disposed of.
However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.