ORDER

Heard, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for respondents and perused the records.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that delay in filing the present OA may be condoned.

3. Tersely put the case of the applicant is that applicant was orally put off from duty by the Director on 16.09.1989, so applicant filed Reference No.276-88 C.B.No.899/88 dated 01.02.1991 for adjudication No.50/1991 before Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (ii) UP, Lucknow wherein award was passed on 08.07.1997 with the findings that CDRI is not Industry and case falls under the jurisdiction of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

3. Against the aforesaid order applicant filed Writ Petition No.2684 (S/S) of 2001 Prem Chandra vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (ii) UP, Lucknow which was decided on 20.01.2020 with affirmation dated 08.07.1997. Thus, matter was pending in legal process since 16.09.1989 to 20.01.2020. Due to Corona pandemic and economic hardship due to jobless applicant was unable to file OA. Hence, delay condonation application.

4. Respondents by filing the preliminary objection have, inter alia, stated that OA is barred by limitation. Delay in filing OA has not been properly explained. Applicant was out of employment since 1989 and at present his age is 54 years. Applicant wants to come back in the service after more than 33 years from the date of his last disengagement. Opposite parties relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai reported in (2012) 5 SCC 157 and Balwant Sinh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh & Others reported in 2010 8 SCC 685 .

5. In reply against the preliminary objection, applicant has further stated that Writ Petition No.2684 (SS) of 2001 was decided on 20.01.2020. Delay is due to delay in disposal of aforesaid writ petition and onset of Corona pandemic. Applicant is very poor and jobless. Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has propounded the legal principle that courts should lean in favour of granting opportunity of hearing rather shutting it up. Applicant should be provided opportunity of hearing.

6. Perusal of the order dated 20.01.2020 passed in writ petition No.2684 (S/S)/2001 Perm Chand vs PO, Industrial Tribunal, UP, Lucknow reveals that aforesaid writ was decided on 20.01.2020. So, applicant was perusing his case before the Hon'ble High Court up to 2020. There was onset of Corona pandemic. Hon'ble Apex Court excluded the Corona period also from the limitation period. Law on the point of limitation is settled that Courts should be liberal in deciding the limitation. Courts should lean in favour of granting opportunity of hearing. Courts should endeavour to decide the case on merits rather than on technical grounds.

7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that applicant has make out a case for delay condonation. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Admit. Counter Affidavit may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder Affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List before Deputy Registrar on 30.11.2023 for completion of pleadings. (PANKAJ KUMAR) (JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Ak/- <br/>