19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0422692026 Ct. No. 1 SL. No. 19 PG IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WP.CT. 196 of 2026 MADHAB CHANDRA MONDAL, SON OF LATE MRITUNJOY MONDAL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARES BY FAITH-HINDU BY OCCUPATION EX-EMPLOYEE, RESIDENCE AT 1018 D, DEBENDRA CHANDRA DEY ROAD, POST OFFICE-TANGRA, POLICE STATION-ENTALLY, KOLKATA-700015 ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA SERVICE THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY 17, N.S. ROAD, FAIRLY PLACE KOLKATA-700001 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER EASTERN RAILWAY, 17, N.S. ROAD, FAIRLY PLACE KOLKATA-700001 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF OPERATING MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY 17, N.S. ROAD, FAIRLY PLACE KOLKATA-700001 1 of 9 19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY, SEALDAH, 14 KAZIZAR STREET, KOLKATA-700014 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER/TRS/SABH, KOLKATA-700014 ….Respondents ---- Mr. Sunny Nandi, Mr. Dipranjan Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Mahadeb Ghosh, Mr. Arun Kumar Paul Mr. Pritam Ghosh…... Advocates for the Petitioner Mr. Dwijadas Chakraborty Mr. Tirtha Pati Acharya, Advocates for the Union of India ---- CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ & OM NARAYAN RAI, J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 2. We find that a peculiar issue has resulted in a litigant losing a valuable right to seek redressal of his grievance. 3. The Petitioner before us was an employee of the 2 of 9 19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt Railway Department. Since he was awarded a major punishment of compulsory retirement, he preferred an Application on 05.12.2020, before a Revisional Authority for re-consideration of the quantum of punishment. Since the said Application was kept pending for long, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata with O.A. No. 2012 of 2022. By an order dated 13.12.2022, the Tribunal disposed off the O.A with a direction to the Revisional Authority to decide the Revision Petition within a period of 60 days. 4. Pursuant to the above, the employer passed an order on 17.02.2023 and disposed off the Revision Petition on the ground that it was filed after the expiry of the period of 45 days granted under Rule 20 of the Railway Servant D&A Rule 1968. 5. Being aggrieved by the above order, the Petitioner again filed OA. No. 193 of 2024 before the Tribunal. The Petitioner appeared personally before the Tribunal and in person made a request that due to inadvertent errors in the Application, he may be permitted to take appropriate steps with regard to his grievance. The Tribunal has recorded in the order dated 17.12.2025 as under: “2. The applicant, who appears in person, prays for withdrawal of the instant O.A. due to some inadvertent errors 3 of 9 19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt in the application and requests for grant of liberty to take appropriate steps with regard to this grievances. 3. In view of the aforesaid, liberty is granted to withdraw the instant O.A. and take appropriate legal recourse as per law.” 6. In view of the above, the Applicant, rather than curing the O.A. by seeking leave to amend so as to remove the errors, preferred to withdraw the O.A. under the liberty granted by the Tribunal for taking appropriate legal recourse as per law. 7. The learned Advocate for the Railways has vehemently opposed this Petition. He submits that the Petitioner did not take the leave of the Tribunal to file a fresh O.A. The Petitioner had appeared in person before the Tribunal. He could have amended the O.A. or could have reserved a right to file a fresh O.A. in the same proceeding. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order cannot be faulted and this Petition be dismissed with heavy costs. 8. Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs such a situation. If a proceeding is to suffer rejection on account of inherent defects, the party can be permitted to withdraw the proceeding and institute a fresh proceeding in the same cause. Alternatively, if the defect is not such that the suit has to fail on 4 of 9 19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt account of such defects, leave to amend could also be granted. 9. The Petitioner was a Railway Driver. He appeared in person before the Tribunal and was unable to express himself. However, it is recorded in the reproduced portion of the order that he did indicate that there are some inadvertent errors in the Application and he requested for grant of liberty to take appropriate steps. The Tribunal itself permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the O.A. and also granted him the liberty to take a legal recourse as per law. 10. Therefore, in our view, the act of the Petitioner in filing a fresh O.A. can be said to be in tune with Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the Tribunal granted him the liberty to take appropriate legal recourse. He had desired to withdraw the Application and take appropriate steps. But he never had the desire to abandon his claim or give up his challenge. 11. In the above backdrop, the Petitioner had preferred O.A. 850 of 2026. There was a delay in preferring the fresh O.A.. The Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. was at admission stage, vide the impugned order dated 17.07.2026. The Tribunal opined that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the Applicant in filing the O.A. 5 of 9 19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt Such delay is not explained satisfactorily. The O.A. was filed on 06.05.2026 after the Tribunal passed the order on 17.12.2025. The limitation is of 90 days. 12. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes a limitation of 01 year for filing the O.A., from date of the final order. In the peculiar circumstances before us, the O.A. was disposed of on 17.12.2025. The fresh O.A. was filed within 05 months on 06.05.2026. Therefore, this case is to be considered differently. 13. Even otherwise, the aspect of delay has to be considered pragmatically in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649. When a valuable right of a litigant is at stake, technicalities ought not to be pitted against such rights. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the following paragraph from the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag (supra). “3. ……………... It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. 6 of 9 19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. “Every day's delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. 5. 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. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the “State” which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the “State” is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in 7 of 9 19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file- pushing and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The courts therefore have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression “sufficient cause”. So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Turning to the facts of the matter giving rise to the present appeal, we are satisfied that sufficient cause exists for the delay. The order of the High Court dismissing the appeal before it as time-barred, is therefore, set aside. Delay is condoned. And the matter is remitted to the High Court. The High Court will now dispose of the appeal on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides.” 14. Even otherwise, the Petitioner had approached the Tribunal within limitation when the punishment order was challenged by preferring O.A. No. 193 of 2024. At best, if the Petitioner succeeds in the O.A. before the Tribunal and is held entitled for back wages, the Tribunal may consider, after hearing the parties, as to whether any portion of the back-wages for this period from January 2026 to April 2026, should be deprived. 15. In view of the above, this Petition is allowed. The 8 of 9 19. WP.CT 196of 2026 Judgment.odt impugned order dated 17.07.2026 is quashed and set aside. O.A. 850 of 2026 shall stand restored to the File of the learned Tribunal. 16. The parties shall produce a print out copy of this order obtained from the official website of the High Court at Calcutta and appear before the Tribunal on 12.10.2026. Thereafter the Tribunal will deal with the said O.A. on its merits. 17. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) CHIEF JUSTICE 9 of 9