Procedural delay in challenging compulsory retirement was condoned to ensure adjudication on merits.

The petitioner challenged an order of compulsory retirement imposed upon him, by filing an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

The Original Application was filed with a delay of 59 days, and the case papers were represented before the Tribunal after a further delay of 726 days.

By orders dated 24 April 2026 in M.A. Nos. 827 and 828 of 2024 in D.No.2168 of 2019, the Tribunal dismissed the applications and declined to number the Original Application.

The petitioner consequently invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the Tribunal’s orders and a direction to number and adjudicate the Original Application.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the 59-day delay in filing the Original Application challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement.

2. Whether the 726-day delay in representing the case papers, allegedly caused by an error of the petitioner’s counsel, ought to have prevented the Original Application from being numbered and adjudicated on merits.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the Original Application taken on file and the challenge to compulsory retirement decided on merits.

The Court applied the principles governing judicial discretion in condoning procedural delays, particularly where refusal would prevent adjudication of a substantive challenge.

It treated compulsory retirement as a major penalty and recognised the Central Administrative Tribunal as the court of first instance in service matters.

The Court further applied the principle that a litigant should not ordinarily suffer prejudice because of an error committed by counsel, especially where the delay is not enormous and the dispute raises a substantive issue requiring adjudication on merits.

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the Tribunal’s interlocutory orders and issue consequential procedural directions.

The Court considered the 59-day delay in filing the Original Application to be relatively minor and therefore condonable, particularly because the challenge concerned compulsory retirement, a major penalty with serious civil consequences.

It also found that the 726-day delay in representation resulted from an error by counsel in filing the Original Application and should not, by itself, prejudice the petitioner or defeat consideration of the disciplinary challenge.

Since the Tribunal is the court of first instance and the merits of the compulsory-retirement challenge had not been adjudicated, the Court held that procedural delay should not foreclose access to that forum.

It condoned the 59-day delay in filing the Original Application and the 726-day delay in representing the case papers.

The Tribunal was directed to number the Original Application, take it on file, and adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was ordered accordingly.