Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, J, PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, A
Hrudananda Nayak – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's request for trca refixation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' objections to delay and merit. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of delay in filing. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial standards for condoning delay. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. legal principles regarding limitation and delay. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. conclusion on dismissal of ma and oa. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The applicant, who is working as GDS MC, Dimripalli BO, under Nayagarh HO has filed this OA on 13.02.2024 seeking to quash the fixation of his TRCA in new slab made vide Annexure-A/3 and steps taken consequence thereto vide letter dated 21.12.2012 (A/4) with direction to the respondents to refix his TRCA in terms of Rule 538 and 539 under Postal Manual Vol. IV Part-I (A/12) and inspection report dated 10.12.2011 (A/13) and pay him the consequential arrears to him. Simultaneously, by filing MA No. 111/2024, he has prayed to condone the delay and laches in filing this OA belatedly. Respondents filed objection to MA 111/2024 contesting the ground taken by the applicant in support of condoning the delay and laches as also counter to the main OA objecting to the merit of the matter
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
