Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. N. Chandra Raj, for the petitioner and Mr. M. Jegadeesan, Additional Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in M.A.No.38 of 2003 arising out of O.A.No.10 of 2003, whereunder the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay of 403 days in filing the Original Application. 3. Such Original Application was filed by the present petitioner, the widow of one Jayakumar who was serving in the Ordnance Factory Board. The grievance of the petitioner as projected in the Original Application was relating to computation of certain period towards the pensionary and other terminal benefits. A representation had been made by her on 7. 1999, but such representation was rejected on 20.11.2000. The Original Application was filed on 212. 2002 and it was numbered as O.A.No.10 of 2003. 4. The main reason projected in the application for condonation of delay was to the effect that due to financial stringency, she was not in a position to file the Original Application earlier. 5. The Tribunal observed that the applicant herself was working in a tea factory and sufficient cause had not been shown for condonation of the delay. Such order is in question in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since it cannot be said that the applicant before the Tribunal had deliberately delayed the matter in order to derive any undue advantage, ordinarily the question of condonation of delay should have been liberally considered by the Tribunal. It has been further submitted by him that at any rate the dispute was only relating to certain pensionary and other terminal benefits and no prejudice would have been caused, if the delay was condoned for the purpose of advancing the cause of substantial justice. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4, on the other hand, has vehemently contended that in fact there was a delay of 411 days and at any rate the present petitioner had not given any sufficient reason for such undue delay. 8. Having heard the counsels for both the parties and having anxiously applied our mind to the questions involved, we feel that the Tribunal has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter. 8. Having heard the counsels for both the parties and having anxiously applied our mind to the questions involved, we feel that the Tribunal has taken a hyper-technical view of the matter. It is now well settled that unless there has been deliberate delay on the part of the litigant, ordinarily the court should condone the delay with a view to advance the cause of substantial justice. 9. In the present case, the widow of a person serving the country in the Army was claiming certain financial benefits in the shape of enhanced pension, etc. Such a matter could have been decided on merit instead of being dismissed on the technical ground of limitation. 10. Having regard to all these aspects, we feel interest of justice would be served by allowing the writ petition and condoning the delay in filing O.A.No.10 of 2003 and remitting the matter to the Tribunal for disposal on merit. The fact that the matter has been remanded for consideration on merit should not be construed as expression of any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised in O.A.No.10 of 2003, which is required to be decided in accordance with law on its own merit. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, subject to the aforesaid observation. No costs.