Application dismissed due to rejection of condonation of delay.

The Applicant, 73-year-old Reginold C C, a retired Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, filed an Original Application with the Central Administrative Tribunal.

The application was dismissed following the rejection of a separate Miscellaneous Application (MA) for condonation of delay on March 16, 2026.

The list of annexures includes various documents such as a gradation list of Inspectors of Post Offices dated November 21, 2001 (Annexure A 1), a request letter for promotion dated December 28, 2006 (Annexure A 2), and letters regarding inability to join a new post due to treatment and illness from March 30, 2009, and May 5, 2009 (Annexures A 6, A 7).

1. Whether the Original Application should be dismissed due to the rejection of the application for condonation of delay.

The court's decision was based on the procedural rule regarding the condonation of delay, impliedly governed by provisions such as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the extension of the prescribed period if the applicant shows sufficient cause for not preferring the application within such period.

The rejection of the MA for condonation of delay indicates that the Applicant failed to satisfy the criteria for sufficient cause, leading to the dismissal of the substantive application.

The Tribunal considered the MA for condonation of delay separately before addressing the merits of the Original Application.

While the specifics of the MA's content and the reasons for its rejection are not detailed in this order, the court’s order explicitly states that the MA for condonation of delay was rejected.

The court then applied the legal principle that if the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the primary application, being time-barred, cannot be entertained.

Therefore, the Original Application was consequently dismissed as a direct result of the MA's rejection.

No costs were awarded.