Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, J, Sangam Narain Srivastava, A
B. Santhanamahalingam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the necessity of timely filing and the implications of delay are critical to maintaining claims. (Para 2 , 11 , 13) |
| 2. the applicant argues the assessment should have been upgraded, indicating a legal challenge to acr ratings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial discretion is exercised based on factors of delay and equity in granting relief. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. the application for condonation is dismissed due to insufficient reasoning for the delay. (Para 14) |
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
This MA has been filed by the applicant to condone the delay of 695 days in filing the Original Application (Diary No.469/2013)
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows: The applicant holds a Graduate Degree from AMIE and a Postgraduate Degree in Structural Engineering. He began his career with the respondent as a permanent way Grade III Inspector on 07.02. 1979. He was promoted to Assistant Engineer on 07.02 1986, and then to Executive Engineer on 22.10.1992. His initial postings were in Chennai, followed by Manamadurai in Madurai. The applicant received 'Good' ratings in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 200
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
