OM PRAKASH MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sudhir Bharti learned counsel for all the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for counter-affidavit.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that O.A.No. 557 of 2004 was pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal. On 10.3.2008 the said O.A. was dismissed in default as the counsel for the petitioner could not appear. THE petitioner thereafter filed an application for recalling of the said order on 2.3.2011 alongwith an application for condonation of delay which was supported by an affidavit. In the said application as well as affidavit, it has been stated that as the case could not be marked by the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner, therefore counsel could not appear on the date fixed and the case was dismissed for non prosecution. It is also stated in the affidavit that when the petitioner inspected the file on 25.1.2011 this fact came to the notice of the petitioner and immediately after coming to know about the same he filed restoration application alongwith an application for condonation of delay.

(3.) THERE is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.