Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Subhash Chander vs Rail Bhawan on 3 November, 2025
1
Item No. 22/ C-1 M.A. No. 4203/2025
O.A. No. 2100/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
M.A. No. 4203/2025
&
O.A. No. 2100/2025
This the 03rd day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Mr. Subhash Chander, aged about 65 years, Group 'A',
S/o Late Sh. Roop Chand
Retired Deputy Chief Security Officer/Engg,
Northern Railway, Head quarter office,
Baroda House, New Delhi-110001 and
R/o B-403, Rail Vihar, Sector-3,
Vasundhara, Ghaziabad-201012
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Gaya Prasad)
Versus
1. Union of India through
Secretary, Minsitry of Railway,
Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
2. General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Head Quarter office,
Baroda House,
New Delhi-110001
3. Sh. Charanjeet Singh
Retired Deputy Chief Engineer,
Northern Railway,
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. S N Verma)
2
Item No. 22/ C-1 M.A. No. 4203/2025
O.A. No. 2100/2025
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman MA No. 4203/2025 (Condonation of delay) Heard Mr. Gaya Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents. The MA has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 2175 days in filing the subject OA.
2. By way of this OA, the applicant is challenging the orders dated 14.10.2016 and 02.05.2017. By the first order dated 14.10.2016, the applicant's application dated 09.06.2016 regarding his placement in Selection Grade at par with his juniors was rejected as he was not found suitable.
3. By the second order dated 02.05.2017, the Director (Estt.), Railway Board communicated about the applicant's rejection of his placement in Selection Grade to the General Manager, Northern Railway.
4. The applicant ought to have approached this Tribunal on or before 14.10.2017. When we asked Mr. Gaya Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, for an explanation for such a huge delay, he relied upon paras 16 and 18 of the MA which read as under:
"16. That since long back, Applicant's wife underwent treatment in Railway Hospital, various Private Hospitals as 3 Item No. 22/ C-1 M.A. No. 4203/2025 O.A. No. 2100/2025 well as in Govt. Hospitals too. Treatments and Medicines were being taken continuously. Thus, due to constrained circumstances and poor health of the Applicant's wife, he could not approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for filing the instant Original Application in prescribed time limit.
18. That further, it is also relevant to mention that the Applicant's mother underwent treatment in the Railway Hospital, various private Hospitals, as well as Govt. Hospitals too. She was continuously under treatment and taking medicines. Due to these constrained circumstances and the poor health of his mother, the Applicant could not approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for filing the instant Original Application within the prescribed time limit. Later, his mother passed away after a prolonged illness due to spinal injury, paralysis, and other multiple diseases. Hence, the Applicant could not approach this Hon'ble Tribunal within the limitation period."
5. Averments in para 16 are regarding the treatment the applicant's wife was undertaking in the Railway Hospital, various Private Hospitals as well as in Government Hospitals. Averments in para 18 are regarding the treatment the applicant's mother was undertaking in Railway Hospital, various Private Hospitals as well as in Government Hospitals. These averments made in Paras 16 and 18 of the MA are extremely vague. There are no particulars/documents giving the details of the treatment of the wife and mother of the applicant.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, we find that there is no proper explanation for condonation of delay. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this MA filed for condonation of delay and the same stands dismissed.
4
Item No. 22/ C-1 M.A. No. 4203/2025 O.A. No. 2100/2025 OA No. 2100/2025 In view of the order of dismissal passed in the MA (MA No. 4203/2025) seeking condonation of delay, the OA has become infructous.
2. Accordingly, the OA stands disposed of.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Justice Ranjit More) Member (A) Chairman /ks/