AWDESH MAHTO Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - (Oral) On previous day i.e. 01.03.2016, the respondent was non-represented and on account thereof, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, an adjournment was granted. Today also, the Railway is not represented. It has been submitted by Mr. Shakib Ayaz, learned Junior Counsel to Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha representing the respondent that as senior is engaged in another Court, as such, the matter be passed over.

(2.) Non-appearance for two consecutive dates should not be seen in ordinary way and the non-appearance should be condoned in routine manner. After all, the lists are being published in advance to acknowledge and further, for having just adjustment. Be that as it may, the fact remains, respondent is non-represented.

(3.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna Bench relating to Claim Case No.0A 00087/2005, whereby and where under the claim petition has been dismissed, but without cost.