Dismissed

Bandhu Mahto v. Department of Posts

CAT14 Sept 2026O.A./68/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An applicant challenged a penalty dismissal via an Original Application filed after a delay of approximately seven years. Failing to provide a sufficient explanation for this inordinate delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the main petition as barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

The governed matter dismissed by the applicant for having been filed beyond the permissible period of limitation without sufficient cause.

Bandhu Mahto vs Department of Posts — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | CAT (2026)

¶1

¶2

O.A. No. 051/0068/2026

¶3

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH CIRCUIT SITTING AT RANCHI

¶4

O.A. No. 051/00068/2026 M.A. No. 051/00070/2026

¶5

Date of order :- 14.09.2026

¶6

C O R A M

¶7

HON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER [A]

¶8

Bandhu Mahto,

¶9

Aged about 65 years, S/o Late Tuko Mahto, Resident of Kaushi, Goniyato, PO- Goniyato, PS- Penk Narayanpur (Nawadih), DistrictBokaro, Jharkhand.

¶10

. ………Applicant

¶11

Versus

¶12

The Union of India represented through Secretary of Ministry of Communication & Postal Department, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.

¶13

The Chief Post Master General, Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi, PO & PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶14

The Inspector Post, Gomia Sub Division, Gomia, PO & PSGomia, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand.

¶15

……..Respondents

¶16

For Applicant:Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi For Respondents:Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey

¶17

Sonali Digitally signed by Lal Sonali Lal

¶18

¶19

O.A. No. 051/0068/2026

¶20

ORDER (Oral)

¶21

PER:- MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER[A]

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

The present O.A. has remained at the stage of notice hearing since January, 2026. The matter was first taken up on 11.02.2026. Thereafter, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has remained irregular in pursuing the matter. Consequently, on 17.07.2026, notice was directed to be issued to the applicant, which was duly served upon the applicant on 28.07.2026. Even today, learned counsel for the applicant seeks an adjournment for filing a supplementary affidavit. Having regard to the history of the proceedings, the prayer for adjournment is declined.

¶24

I have perused the pleadings and the material available on record. The present O.A. has been instituted challenging the order dated 02.12.2019, whereby the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the applicant. The O.A. has thus been instituted after an inordinate delay of approximately seven years.

¶25

The applicant has filed M.A. No. 70/2026 seeking condonation of the aforesaid delay. However, on a perusal of the averments made in the said M.A., I find that no sufficient, satisfactory or cogent explanation has been furnished for the extraordinary delay in approaching this Tribunal.

¶26

It is well settled that an applicant seeking condonation of an inordinate delay is required to satisfactorily explain the delay and

¶27

Sonali Digitally signed by Lal Sonali Lal

¶28

¶29

O.A. No. 051/0068/2026

¶30

demonstrate sufficient cause for not approaching the Court/Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. In the present case, the applicant has failed to discharge that burden.

¶31

In the circumstances, M.A. No. 70/2026 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the O.A., having been filed after an inordinate delay and being barred by limitation, is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶32

No order as to costs.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Member (A)

¶35

sl/-

¶36

Sonali Digitally signed by Lal Sonali Lal

Bandhu Mahto v. Department of Posts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandhu Mahto v. Department of Posts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary

Mohd Iqbal Shah vs Ut of Jk through Commissioner Secretary School Education Department

Gulam Mohi Ud Din Khan vs Jal Shakti Department

Habibullah Khan vs Home Department

Smt Archana Devi vs Union of India