Judgment :- (1). MR. Pan files vakalatnama in Court the same be taken on record. (2). NO affidavit-in-opposition has been filed since affidavit-in-reply had been filed by the respondent to contest the application before the learned tribunal. (3). THIS application is directed against the judgment and order dated 15th of January, 2007 passed by the learned Tribunal by which the petitioners application for granting promotion has been rejected. (4). WE have gone through the impugned judgment and order and we notice the learned Tribunal, having admitted the appeal and hearing at length, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner had neither filed any application for condonation of delay nor the delay in filing the application has been explained. Learned Tribunal in deciding the matter has relied on section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which is set out hereunder: "21. Limitation-(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made ; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates ; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. " (5). HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully going through the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal it appears to us, learned Tribunal, after having observed the petitioners entitlement of getting promotion, did not grant any relief. (6). THE question which has fallen for consideration is that whether the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application, after admitting the same and hearing the same on merit, on the ground of delay, taking recourse to Section 21 of the said Act or not. (7). AS rightly urged by Mr. Ghosh, the provision of Section 21 of the said Act can be made applicable at the threshold as the starting word of the said section very clearly stipulates "tribunal shall not admit an application". We are of the view once an application is admitted and direction for filing affidavit is given, it is incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to decide the matter on merit and not to reject the same on the plea of limitation at a later stage. Once an order is passed admitting the application, it shall be presumed, learned tribunal has condoned such delay for which no formal application is required to be made. In a case reported in (2008)2 Cal HN page 7 (Kashi Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Ors.) while taking note of Supreme Court judgment and a judgment of this Court, held power of condonation is given to Court and/ or to any appropriate authority and a Court or any appropriate authority can condone delay when section does not require any application to be made and if any order is passed without express words of condonation it shall be presumed that the Court and/or the authority is deemed to have condoned the delay. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the order of the learned Tribunal. (8). LEARNED Tribunal factually found that the petitioner deserves promotion. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the order of the learned Tribunal. (8). LEARNED Tribunal factually found that the petitioner deserves promotion. It is alleged that employees, junior to the applicant, have already been given promotion on the basis of seniority whereas the applicants case has been left out. The applicant says that he is entitled to get promotion from 1993 and he went on making representations ; however no action was taken on such representations. Whatever and howsoever high the case of the applicant be it is an admitted position that the applicant sat tight over the matter for a long time and has filed the application only in March, 2003. Therefore, his right to get promotion, on the basis of seniority, can only be given if any junior to him has been given promotion on or after March, 2000. Going by the observation and findings of the learned Tribunal it appears undoubtedly that the petitioner has been arbitrarily left out and hostile discrimination has been meted out in the name of granting promotion. (9). WE, therefore, direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner and if he is found otherwise eligible in all respects and if seniority is the only criteria for granting promotion then his promotion should be given. Let these things be considered within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner should be given notional benefit on or from 1st of March, 2000 provided any candidate junior to the applicant was given promotion on or after 1st of March, 2000. However, actual benefit shall be given from the date of passing the order of promotion in terms of this order. Decision, however, will be taken, but promotion in effect should be given forthwith if vacancy is available at present. If there is no vacancy then he should be fitted in the promotional post at the first available opportunity as and when such vacancy will arise. The application is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.