1 2026:CGHC:25547-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4529 of 2026 Narayan Prasad Verma S/o Late Shri Vasudev Verma Aged About 34 Years R/o Dhaba Road, Near Agrawal Aata Chakki, Shanti Nagar, Tah. And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through The Chief General Manager, C.G. Telecom Circle, Administratve Building Vidhan Sabha Road, Khamardih, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492007 2 - The Assistant General Manager (Ma. Sa. ) Office Of The Chief General Manager, C.G. Telecom Circle, Administratve Building Vidhan Sabha Road, Khamardih, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin- 492007 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 17/06/2026 1. The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Circuit Sitting at 2 Bilaspur (for short “CAT”) in Miscellaneous Application No. 203/1610/2025 in Original Application No. 203/91/2020. 2. By the impugned order, the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner for restoration of Original Application No. 203/91/2020 was dismissed. The said Original Application had earlier been dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.09.2023 and subsequently restored. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the father of the petitioner namely Vasudev Verma was working as a Phone Mechanic with respondent and died in harness on 30.10.2009 while in service. The petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, filed an original application before the learned CAT. The said application came up for hearing before the learned CAT, Jabalpur, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur on 08.09.2025 and was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter, the miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner for restoration of the above O.A. No. 203/91/2020 which was also dismissed by the learned CAT by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was engaged to represent the petitioner in the Original Application before the learned CAT. When the matter was listed before the learned CAT, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur, he was engaged in proceedings before this Court and, therefore, requested his colleague to attend the matter before the learned CAT. He further submits that due to certain personal difficulties, his colleague could not reach the 3 learned CAT at the time the matter was called out and, upon reaching the Court, came to know that the matter had already been dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further submitted that the Original Application was not decided on merits and, since it pertains to compassionate appointment, non-restoration thereof would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that a litigant should not suffer for the inadvertent lapse on the part of counsel and tenders his unconditional apology. Accordingly, he prays that the writ petition be allowed, the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 be set aside, and Original Application No. 203/91/2020 be restored to its original number. 5. Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, opposes the petition and supports the order passed by the learned CAT. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties reveal that the counsel for the petitioner had requested his colleague to attend the matter before the learned CAT. However, due to personal difficulties, the said colleague could not appear before the learned CAT when the matter was called, resulting in dismissal of the Original Application for want of prosecution. While rejecting the restoration application, the learned CAT observed that the Original Application had earlier also been dismissed for want of prosecution and, therefore, declined to restore the same. It is a settled principle of law that a 4 litigant should not suffer on account of the mistake or inadvertence of counsel [ Rafique vs Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788]. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute his case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned CAT in Miscellaneous Application No. 203/1610/2025 is hereby set aside and Original Application No. 203/91/2020 is restored to its original number. 9. As a consequence, the writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. SD/- SD/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE JUDGE Madhurima