Facts
The applicants, serving as Scientist 'C' in the NTRO, filed an Original Application (OA) in 2015.
Source reference: p.3During the proceedings on February 4, 2026, the Tribunal permitted the applicants’ counsel to be discharged from the matter
Source reference: p.3Following this, the Registry issued fresh notices to the applicants on February 10, 2026, instructing them to appear either in person or through new counsel on the next date of hearing
Source reference: p.3On March 10, 2026, when the matter was called for hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the applicants even after a revised call
Source reference: p.3Issues
Whether the Original Application is liable for dismissal on account of non-prosecution and the applicants' failure to appear despite service of notice.
Source reference: p.3, para. 2-3Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the procedural principle of dismissal for "non-prosecution" and "dismissal in default."
Source reference: p.3, para. 3Under the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (specifically Rule 15), if an applicant fails to appear when the application is called for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, dismiss the application for default rather than deciding it on merits
Source reference: p.3, para. 3Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that procedural requirements for ensuring a fair hearing were met by issuing fresh notices to the applicants after their counsel’s discharge
Source reference: p.3The Registry had dispatched these notices on February 10, 2026, providing sufficient time for the applicants to arrange alternative representation or appear in person
Source reference: p.3The Tribunal noted that the absence of the applicants during the initial call and the subsequent "revised call" indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the litigation
Source reference: p.3, para. 2Since the applicants failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to prosecute the case, the Tribunal found no grounds to keep the matter pending
Source reference: p.3Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicants had lost interest in the matter.
Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution
Source reference: p.3, para. 3All pending Miscellaneous Applications were ordered to stand disposed of, with no order as to costs
Source reference: p.3-4Original Court PDF
ARVIND KUMAR GARGvsNational Technical Research Organisation (ntro)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in