Inordinate restoration delay was condoned upon proof of persistent diligence and advocate incapacity.

The applicant, a retired Transmission Executive, had filed O.A. No. 187/2013 challenging the respondents’ failure to convene a timely Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Programme Executive under the Scheduled Caste and physically handicapped quotas.

The respondents filed their reply on 17 September 2013, but the applicant’s rejoinder was not filed. On 23 November 2016, the O.A. was dismissed for non-prosecution after neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared despite an earlier direction that the matter would be proceeded with under Rule 15(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

The applicant claimed that he became aware of the dismissal only in 2020 and thereafter repeatedly contacted his advocate regarding restoration.

He relied upon WhatsApp communications from 2020 to 2025, and attributed the continued delay to the illness and subsequent death of his advocate, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic and related procedural restrictions.

He accordingly filed M.A. No. 444/2025 for restoration of the O.A. and M.A. No. 445/2025 seeking condonation of a delay of eight years and eleven months.

The respondents opposed the applications, contending that the delay resulted from negligence and lack of due diligence, and that restoration would be legally meaningless because the applicant had retired before the relevant DPC and allegedly stood at Serial No. 410 in the feeder cadre seniority list.

1. Whether the delay of eight years and eleven months in filing the restoration application should be condoned on the basis of the applicant’s asserted personal diligence and the circumstances relating to his advocate’s default, illness and death?

2. Whether the applicant should suffer dismissal of his O.A. for non-prosecution due to the omission or failure of his advocate to appear and pursue the proceedings?

3. Whether O.A. No. 187/2013 should be restored to its original file and number, without expressing any view on its merits?

The Tribunal applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, under which delay may be condoned where the applicant establishes “sufficient cause,” with the provision receiving a liberal construction to advance substantial justice.

It considered Rule 15(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, under which the Tribunal may proceed where a party fails to appear.

The Tribunal relied principally on Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr., holding that an innocent litigant who has engaged, briefed and paid an advocate should not ordinarily suffer for the advocate’s inaction or absence.

It also considered State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, affirming that limitation applies equally and inordinate delay cannot be condoned casually, and Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, cautioning that delay cannot be condoned on purely humanitarian grounds where the litigant lacks diligence.

Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) was considered for the principle that condonation is discretionary and may be refused in cases of inordinate delay, negligence or want of due diligence, although sufficient cause may justify condonation depending on the circumstances.

The Tribunal distinguished cases where delay was attributable to indolence or lack of diligence.

It found that the WhatsApp records placed on record demonstrated that the applicant had remained in contact with his advocate and had persistently sought progress and restoration after learning of the dismissal.

The Tribunal further accepted the advocate’s prolonged illness, subsequent death and the COVID-19 restrictions as circumstances beyond the applicant’s control which contributed to the delay.

Applying the principle in Rafiq, it held that the applicant should not be deprived of adjudication merely because of his advocate’s failure to appear or pursue the case, particularly where the record indicated continuing personal diligence.

The respondents’ objections concerning the applicant’s retirement, seniority position and alleged lack of merit were not adjudicated because the Tribunal expressly confined its decision to condonation and restoration.

It allowed M.A. No. 445/2025 and condoned the delay of eight years and eleven months in filing the restoration application.

It consequently allowed M.A. No. 444/2025, restored O.A. No. 187/2013 to its original file and number, and permitted the matter to proceed for final adjudication.

The O.A. was listed for final hearing on 2 September 2026.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the original O.A.