When the matter was listed for admission/preliminary hearing on 16.8.2017, upon hearing Shri M.S.Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, the following order was passed :

      "The matter was initially listed for preliminary hearing on 24.7.2017. By the order dated 24.7.2017, the matter was adjourned on 27.7.2017. On 27.7.2017, neither the applicant nor the learned counsel for the applicant was present.  However, considering the fact that due to heavy rain in the city, it may not be possible for the learned Advocate to remain present, with a view to give him an opportunity, the matter was adjourned to 28.07.2017.  On 28.07.2017, at the request of Shri M.S.Trivedi, the matter was adjourned to 09.08.2017.  On 09.08.2017, none appeared for the applicant. Hence, the following orders was passed: 

"None for the applicant.

However, with a view to give last ad final opportunity to the applicant, the matter is adjourned to 16.08.2017."

  Today, Shri H.B.Desai, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the he wants to file MA for condonation of delay. With regard to his submission, I may observe that the learned counsel for the applicant ought to have taken appropriate steps before filing of the OA itself. The matter was already adjourned for four times. It is very regretting to note that in spite of the specific observation in the order dated 09.08.2017, the learned counsel for the applicant did not choose to put forth his case. If it were to be the intention to file MA for condonation of delay, there was no impediment whatsoever to do so as on date. However, considering the submission of Shri H.B.Desai, with a view to give a last and final opportunity, the matter is adjourned to 21.8.2017.  

    It is made clear that under any circumstances, no further adjournment will be granted on next date of hearing and if the learned counsel for the applicant fails to appear and make his submission, the Tribunal will be constrained to further proceed with the matter by exercising the powers under Rule 15 (1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

        Call on 21.8.2017."

    In spite of the above specific order till today, no application with a prayer to condone of delay in not making OA well within time allowed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is filed.

   I may also note that today neither the applicant nor his counsel is present. 

       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary of Govt. of India & Ors. v. Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 231. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under :

“It would immediately occur to anyone that since the order of discharge was of 7-10-1986 and the application was filed in 1990, it was clearly barred by limitation unless an application for condoning the delay was made under Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. No such application was in fact made. Even if it was the contention of the employee that he was suffering from schizophrenia, that could have been projected as a ground for condonation of delay under Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the said statute. Even otherwise without insisting on the formality of an application under Section 21(3) if the Tribunal had dealt with the question of limitation in the context of Section 21 we may have refrained from interfering with the order of the Tribunal under Article 136, but it seems that the Tribunal totally overlooked this question which clearly stared in the face. Even the employee made no effort to explain the delay and seek condonation. We find no valid explanation on record for coming to the conclusion that the case for condonation of delay is made out. In the circumstances, there is no doubt that the application was clearly barred by limitation. It is also difficult to understand how the Tribunal could have awarded full back wages even for the period of delay for which the employee was solely responsible. However, since application itself is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it deserves to be dismissed."

       While applying the principles of the above judgment to the facts of the case on hand and in spite of the fact of the above extract order dated 16.8.2018, it was made clear that no further adjournment will be granted, since no steps were taken by the applicant, I am constrained to dismiss the OA on the ground of delay and laches. According, the OA stands dismissed.