CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mrs. S. Sujatha, J, Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, A
Gopal Krishna Thakre – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of representation does not extend limitation period. (Para 2 , 9) |
| 2. grading impacts promotion and seniority. (Para 3 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. delays must be justified to be excusable. (Para 7 , 8) |
The matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections. The main objection raised is non-filing of application for condonation of delay despite there is delay in filing the OA.
2. At the outset, a question was posed to the learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri K.Shivakumar, whether time is required to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry i.e, regarding filing of miscellaneous application for condonation of delay, but the learned Counsel categorically stated that the office objection raised is frivolous vis-à-vis relief/s claimed in the OA and as such he is not seeking for any time to comply the same. In other words, according to the learned Counsel, there is absolutely no delay in filing the OA. Hence we proceeded to examine the said issue regarding the maintainability of the application qua the office objections raised.
S SARALADEVI CAT, BANGALORE
2025.06.16
3. The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.