A tribunal cannot decide an application on merits after rejecting delay condonation.

The petitioner, who had been compulsorily retired, challenged the penalty before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) in Application No. 7088/2018 and sought condonation of delay.

The Tribunal rejected the delay-condonation application and also dismissed the application on merits.

The petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order dated 22 October 2021.

Whether the Tribunal’s order, which rejected the application for condonation of delay and also dismissed the underlying application on merits, was contrary to the Supreme Court’s propositions in H. Guruswamy and Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is shown.

Relying on H. Guruswamy and Others v. A. Krishnaiah (since deceased) by LRs, Civil Appeal No. 317/2025, decided 8 January 2025, the Court stated that a court considering condonation must first assess the bona fides and sufficiency of the explanation for delay, rather than begin with the merits of the underlying matter; the length of delay is relevant, and merits may assist only where the explanation and opposition are equally balanced.

The Court noted that this approach was reiterated in Union of India and Another v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LR, Civil Appeal No. 4672/2024, decided 3 April 2024.

The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner’s Section 5 application and also decided the substantive application on its merits.

The High Court held that this procedure was contrary to the cited Supreme Court authorities, which require the tribunal first to determine whether delay should be condoned, without beginning with the merits of the underlying case.

On that procedural ground, the Tribunal’s order could not stand; the High Court did not assess the merits of the compulsory-retirement challenge.

The application was restored to its original file.

KSAT was directed to decide the Section 5 application within one month of receiving the High Court’s order and, only if delay is condoned, to hear and decide the application on its merits in accordance with law.

The High Court left all contentions open and made no determination on the merits.