Reserved on 10.12.2025.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 12^TH day of DECEMBER, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 5051 of 2025 In Diary No. 6600 of 2025 Nand Lal son of Mathura Ram, Resident of Puchhadi Nai Basti, Ramnagar Range, Nainital Uttarakhand, 244715.

……..Applicant By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Mishra/Shri Nand Lal Yadav Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary Finance & Revenue, Board of Excise, New Delhi.

2. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Custom Commissionerate of Central Excise and Custom/GST 7A, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajesh Bhawan, Rampur Garden, Division Bareilly.

.………Respondents By Advocate: Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present O.A has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a order, or direction for set aside the impugned oral termination order dated 09.10.2006 and respondents directing to first take back the applicant on the same terms and conditions on which they were working before 09.10.2006 and consider the regularization of his service and pay the all arrears if any of the applicant.

(ii) Any other, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Allow cost of the petition to the applicant”.

2. Record reveals that oral termination order dated 09.10.2006 has been challenged in this matter. Due to this reason, applicant has filed Delay Condonation Application. On the request of learned counsel for the respondents, he was allowed to file the objection to the Delay Condonation Application but he did not file the same, thus, opportunity for filing the objection to the Delay Condonation Application has been closed.

3. Heard Shri Yogesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents on Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 5051/2025.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that vide order dated 09.10.2006, the applicant’s services were orally terminated by the respondents. The applicant had earlier challenged the previous termination order before this Tribunal, which was set aside and direction was issued for his reinstatement. It is further submitted that the applicant’s services have again been terminated by the impugned termination order without issuance of any show-cause notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without holding any proper enquiry. Referring to paragraphs 3 to 9 of the affidavit filed alongwith the Delay Condonation Application, learned counsel submits that after the impugned termination, the applicant became disappointed and returned to his native village in Nainital, due to which he could not challenge the termination order within time. It is further argued that similarly situated persons, namely Charan Singh and Nanhe, whose services were also terminated by the same order dated 09.10.2006, filed OA No. 1408/2006 before this Tribunal. The said OA was allowed on 17.04.2012 and their termination orders were set aside. When the respondents did not comply with the directions, the said persons filed a contempt petition, whereafter they were reinstated in service. Learned counsel for the applicant again submits that due to poverty, the applicant could not file his case earlier. Since the oral termination orders of similarly situated persons have already been set aside, the applicant is also entitled to similar relief on the principles of justice and equality. He cannot be denied the benefit solely on account of delay, particularly when the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but is due to financial hardship. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the delay in filing the OA Diary No. 660/202