Application Dismissed for Default Due to Repeated Non-Appearance of Applicant.

On March 11, 2026, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, noted that there was no representation on behalf of the applicant in OA No. 3825/2016.

The Tribunal further observed that on two previous dates, specifically September 10, 2025, and January 6, 2026, the applicant had also not been represented.

Prior to those dates, on August 12, 2024, and November 30, 2024, the presence of both parties was recorded by the Court Officer due to paucity of time, which was noted as a usual practice.

1. Whether the Original Application should be dismissed due to the repeated non-appearance of the applicant or their representative.

The Tribunal implicitly applied the procedural rule regarding the dismissal of a case in default for non-prosecution when an applicant fails to appear or be represented over multiple scheduled hearings.

This rule allows for the termination of proceedings when it is presumed that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the matter due to their absence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to appear or send a representative on three consecutive hearing dates: September 10, 2025, January 6, 2026, and March 11, 2026.

While the presence of both parties was recorded by the Court Officer on two earlier dates (August 12, 2024, and November 30, 2024), this was attributed to a general practice due to time constraints, and did not negate the subsequent and repeated absences.

Based on this consistent pattern of non-representation, the Tribunal presumed that the applicant no longer intended to pursue the Original Application.

Consequently, the Original Application (OA No. 3825/2016) was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

There was no order as to costs.