Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116638-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9892 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mushahid Husain Respondent :- Union of India and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar, Mohd. Faizan Counsel for Respondent :- Hridaya Narayan Mishra, A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 02.04.2025, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (for short 'Tribunal') whereby the restoration application, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 2. The Original Application ('OA'), filed by the petitioner, came to be dismissed on 26.07.1999, when the Tribunal observed that on two dates, in the past, none had appeared for the petitioner and therefore, the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. The restoration application was filed after 25 years, in the year 2024 with the submissions that counsel, who was representing the petitioner, at the relevant time, is no more and the petitioner was unaware about the order passed in the OA and therefore, he could not approach the Tribunal for recall of the order dated 26.07.1999 in time and as and when he became aware of dismissal of the case, the application has been filed. 4. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the reasons disclosed in the application seeking condonation of delay for filing the restoration application had no substance and there was no reason to restore the case. The Tribunal also noticed that even the file in question cannot be reconstructed inasmuch as, the record had already been weeded out as the Tribunal and both the counsel representing the petitioner as well as the Union of India had no documents, whatsoever with regard to claim of OA of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the petitioner was trying to approach his counsel from the year 1996 to 2000, however, he did not receive any information, whereafter he met a counsel, who assured that he would file the vakalatnama, however, the counsel did not do the needful and ultimately, when the petitioner came to Allahabad in March, 2024 to find out the status of his case, he was made aware of the dismissal of his case in the year 1999 and consequently, the application seeking restoration was filed. 6. 6. Submissions have been made that the respondent may be called upon to produce the material with regard to the case of the petitioner as none are in possession of the requisite material and the orders passed by the Tribunal be set aside and matter be restored back. 7. Counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. 8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The OA was dismissed for non-prosecution when on two dates, none appeared for the applicant, on 26.07.1999. After 25 years, the restoration application was filed by making assertion pertaining to the counsel not informing the petitioner. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar and others Vs. Ved Prakash : [2024] 11 SCR 1466 has recently observed that the tendency of blaming the counsel for negligence of the parties cannot be appreciated, relevant para 10 thereof reads as under: "10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the Petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief." 11. Further, as to what steps were taken by the petitioner, are totally unknown and silent. The ground sought to be created by way of filing of the present writ petition, is also not convincing enough for this Court to accept the plea that the petitioner was vigilant for over 24 years in filing the restoration application. 12. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Jyotsana/Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad