Facts
The applicants, consisting of eleven employees (SK-III, LDC, and UDC) of the Canteen Stores Department, filed this Original Application (O.A.) in 2015 seeking administrative relief
Source reference: p.1-3Following a previous disposal, the matter was revived via M.A. No. 2731/2025 on February 24, 2026
Source reference: p.4The Tribunal Registry dispatched copies of the revival orders dated January 27, 2026, and February 24, 2026, to the applicants’ last known addresses via speed post on February 2, 2026, and March 5, 2026, respectively, to ensure they were informed of the re-hearing
Source reference: p.4Despite these notifications, no representative appeared for the applicants during the scheduled hearing on April 21, 2026
Source reference: p.3-4Issues
Whether the Original Application is maintainable for adjudication when the applicants fail to appear or prosecute the matter despite due notice.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4-5Law Applied
The court applied the procedural principle of "Dismissal for Non-Prosecution" as governed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Under these principles, if an applicant fails to appear when the application is called for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, dismiss the application for default
Source reference: p.4This is based on the legal doctrine that interest in pursuing a remedy is a prerequisite for the court to exercise its jurisdiction.
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that procedural due process had been strictly followed by serving notice to the applicants through speed post at their last known addresses
Source reference: p.4, para. 4Since the applicants failed to appear in person or through counsel on the date fixed for re-hearing (April 21, 2026), the Tribunal inferred a lack of interest in pursuing the litigation
Source reference: p.4, para. 5Without the presence of the applicants to argue the merits or contest the matter, the Tribunal determined that it was unnecessary to keep the case pending on the docket. Consequently, the matter was categorized as a "non-prosecution" case
Source reference: p.4, para. 5Holding
The Tribunal held that the applicants had lost interest in the matter.
The Original Application (O.A. No. 969/2015) was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. All pending Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs
Source reference: p.4, para. 5Original Court PDF
Anil Kumar VermavsM/o Defence
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in