Application stands rejected for non-compliance with a self-working order regarding condonation of delay.

The applicant, a 66-year-old retired Senior Accountant, filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Upon admission on October 24, 2025, the Tribunal noted a "considerable delay" in filing and directed the applicant to file an application for condonation of delay

Despite several subsequent postings, the applicant failed to file the said application.

Consequently, on March 6, 2026, the Tribunal issued a "self-working order" granting a final ten-day period to file the delay condonation application, stipulating that failure to comply would result in the automatic rejection of the O.A.

On March 17, 2026, the applicant’s counsel attempted to file the application

Whether the Original Application stands automatically rejected due to non-compliance with the peremptory timeline established in a self-working order

The Tribunal applied the procedural doctrine of "self-working orders" (also known as peremptory or conditional orders). This principle dictates that when a court passes an order granting a specific timeframe for a procedural act with a predefined penalty for non-compliance (such as dismissal), the order operates automatically upon the expiry of that timeframe without requiring a further hearing or decree

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was explicitly warned on October 24, 2025, regarding the necessity of a delay condonation application

Despite multiple opportunities, the applicant remained non-compliant. The "self-working order" dated March 6, 2026, established a strict ten-day window for compliance, which had already elapsed by the hearing date of March 17, 2026

The Tribunal reasoned that because the deadline had passed, the order had "worked itself out," meaning the consequences of the order (the rejection of the O.A.) had already been triggered by operation of law

The Tribunal found that the belated submission of the application on the day of the hearing was insufficient to override the automatic rejection already in effect.

It answered the core issue by affirming that the self-working order became absolute upon the expiration of the ten-day grace period, thus terminating the proceedings automatically.

No costs were awarded