Open court.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 10^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. 123 of 2025 In Execution Application No. 330/2932 of 2024 (Arising out of Original Application No. 970/2014)

Ghanshyam Das ……..Applicants By Advocate: Shri R.K Dixit, Versus Union of India and others .………Respondents By Advocate: Shri D.S. Shukla

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Heard Shri R.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The applicant has filed the present Execution Application No. 2932/2024 alleging non-compliance of the order dated 04.04.2022 passed in O.A. No. 970/2014. The judgment was delivered on 04.04.2022, whereas the execution application has been filed on 08.07.2024, i.e., after about two years. Along with the execution application, Delay Condonation Application No. 330/123/2025 has been filed explaining the reasons for the delay.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment dated 04.04.2022 was duly served upon the respondents for its compliance. Though the respondents have entered the name of the applicant in the seniority list, they have not granted consequential benefits nor paid arrears from 2012. It is also submitted that the applicant retired on 30.06.2023, and the PPO issued thereafter appears to have been prepared without properly calculating his pension. Learned counsel states that due to the applicant’s old age and ill health, he could not approach the Tribunal earlier. He submits that the delay of about one year is neither deliberate nor intentional and prays that it be condoned in the interest of justice. He has relied upon the order of this Tribunal in M.A. No. 2853/2023 in Execution Application No. 1991/2023 (Tapash Roy Chaudhary v. Union of India), decided on 24.07.2024. He also states that limitation period will start from the date when the reasoned and speaking order has been passed in compliance of the direction of the Tribunal. To support this contention, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in L.N. Yadav v. Union of India & Others, MA No. 2315/2007 in OA No. 2472/2004, decided on 16.12.2008

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the delay condonation application and submits that no cogent or sufficient reasons have been shown to condone the delay. He further submits that the applicant has not explained the delay on a day-to-day basis, and therefore the application is liable to be rejected.

5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. The operative portion of the judgment dated 04.04.2022 in O.A.

No. 970/2014 reads as under:

“7. In view of the limited prayer made by the leanred counsel for the applicants at this stage, this OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give effect to the notification dated 19.10.2012 and accordingly place the applicants at a correct place in the seniority list maintained by them for the post of Postman. It is made clear that this notional seniority shall count for all other consequential benefits except for the financial benefits. The aforesaid direction be complied with within a period of 12 weeks from today. No costs.”

7. From the record, it appears that although notional seniority has been granted to the applicant, the consequential benefits have not been given. A prima facie case of non-compliance is therefore made out. The applicant ought to have filed the execution application earlier; however, the reasons for the delay have been explained in the delay condonation application.

8. The law regarding condonation of delay is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji & Others (AIR 1987 SC 1353) has held that