( 2025:HHC:24094 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 6810 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23rd July, 2025 ____________________________________________________ Indian Institute of Advanced Study ....Petitioner. Versus Dr. S.K. Goel and another …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Happy Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajinder Singh, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.2. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.03.2023, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No.063/1175/2017 titled Dr. S.K.Goel versus Union of India and others. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The Tribunal had allowed the OA filed by the employee and set aside the orders dated 24.03.2017, 22.07.2013 and 14.03.2014 and granted the employee, the benefits of second MACP in the pay scale of 9300-34800 plus Grade Pay of Rs.4800 and third MACP in pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 plus Grade Pay of Rs.6600 w.e.f. 01.09.2008 with all consequential benefits. The arrears of pay and allowances were restricted to 18 months from the date of filing. 3. We do not propose to go into the merits of the case as in our considered opinion, the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by us in CWP No.2522 of 2025 titled Union of India and others vs. Pawna Devi, on 25.02.2025, wherein in similar circumstances, we dismissed a large number of petitions filed by the Union of India filed after a gap of two years from the decision of the Tribunal. 4. It is pertinent to notice that the date of filing of the Writ petition is 26.03.2025, which is after a period of two years from the decision by the Tribunal. Even, the Writ petition does not contain any whisper as to why there was inordinate delay in filing the Writ petition, so that we could be persuaded as such to examine the decision on merits. 3 5. It is settled principle that the litigant as such has to be aware to pursue the remedy of appeal to the higher forum within the prescribed period or within a reasonable period by filing writ petitions. Long gap as such created by the petitioner of two years for challenging the orders of the Tribunal at its own whims and fancies cannot be permitted and this is the principle laid down in Pawna Devi’s case, where the Union of India had been repeatedly filing the Writ petitions after a period of more than one year and some cases up to five years against the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. Resultantly, we have held that after a year of the decision in the service matter, the writ petitioner would have to explain the reasons as such for condoning the delay because there is no period prescribed, since vested right as such comes in force in favour of the party, whose application has been allowed. 6. We are also informed that the employee had also preferred MA 36/2025 (Execution) in O.A. No.1175 of 2017 titled Dr.S.K.Goel versus Indian Institute of Advance Studies, Shimla. 7. Apparently, it is only at that point of time, the petitioner- institute has woken up to prefer the present Writ petition. Thus, in absence of any explanation having been offered, the litigation has become final inter- se the parties and therefore, 4 we are of the considered opinion that principles laid down in Pawna Devi’s case, which read as under, will come into play. “4. We are of the considered opinion that though there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petitions which challenge the orders of the Tribunal while invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the Union of India cannot be permitted free play, as such to challenge the said orders at its own whims and fancies after a period of over two years in all these set of cases. The parties to the litigation have developed a vested right as such after the orders have come in force in their favour and for the Union of India as such to file these writ petitions after the delay as mentioned above, cannot as such be countenanced in the absence of any justifiable reasons. 5 to 7…….. 8. Thus, we can safely hold that there is deliberate inaction and lack of bonafide by the Union of India which amounts to gross negligence and the Union of India cannot take advantage of an order passed by the Hon’bleApex Court whereby, the right to challenge the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal has been cemented by noticing that constitutional provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed. 9 to 10……… 11. In service matters, the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that the orders passed by the authorities regarding seniority etc. be challenged within a reasonable time and reference can be made in the judgment of P.S. Sadasivcaswamyv. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271, whereby the right has been curtailed of the litigants to challenge the administrative orders or claim the right to seniority by filing the writ petitions. 5 12. The said principle can be kept in mind while deciding the present cases also. The concept of liberal approach has to be kept in mind, but the concept of reasonableness and a total unfettered free play cannot be permitted and there is a distinction between inordinate delay and delay of short duration. The fundamental principle before the Court is to weigh the balance of justice in respect of both parties and inaction of a party cannot be given the go-by in the name of a liberal approach and the lack of bonafide’s which is a relevant factor. 13 to 21……. 22. In State of Orissa and others versus SunandaMahakuda(2021) 1 SCC 560, similar observations came forth from the apex Court while dismissing a Special Leave Petition which was time barred and proceedings had been filed after contempt proceedings had been initiated on the dismissal of the writ appeal and therefore, the conduct of the State Government was depreciated while imposing costs of Rs.25000/-. 23. Similar was the position in State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus SabhaNarain and others(2022) 9 SCC 266, which is a three Judge Bench verdict. The relevant portion reads as under:- “4.We have also categorized such kind of cases as “certificate cases” filed with the only object to obtain a quietus from the Supreme Court on the ground that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time 6 when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences. The irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever taken against the officers and if the Court pushes it, some mild warning is all that happens.” 24. In PathapatiSubba Reddy (died) by LRs and others vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) 2024 SC OnLine SC 513, it was also held that stale matters cannot be entertained to defeat the substantial law of limitation and Statute. 25. It is not the case of Union of India that there is any fraud or misrepresentation in the present set of cases, whereby mainly the legal representatives of the Armed Forces are seeking redressal of their rights. The State or the public body can be given some acceptable latitude keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the principle of limitation and though no precise formula,as such,can be laid down, but we cannot brush aside the fact that the parties in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal could have also resorted to getting the orders executed by filing appropriate remedies and Tribunal has also granted the benefit of penal interest, if the payment is not made within the prescribed period. Inspite of this fact the Union of India chose to sit tight and chose not to file the writ petitions within a reasonable period which can be classified as one year and beyond the same, no indulgence can be granted. 26. Therefore, the period prior to 18.10.2023 as such between the date of the decisions ranging from May/August/November, 2022 cannot be condoned in any manner and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches as on account of Union of India not having resorted to its legal remedies expeditiously or even having made reasonable effort to challenge the said 7 orders or even take a decision as such to challenge the said orders for a period of over one year. The latitude as such on account of laxity on the department, in such circumstances cannot be extended. 27. Without going into the merits of the cases, we are of the considered opinion that there is a delay of over a year from passing of the orders and no effort was made to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal within a reasonable time, therefore, on account of the opinion given on 18.09.2023, the Union of India cannot raise the issue on merits. 28. Resultantly, there is no other option, but to dismiss these four writ petitions on account of the principle of delay and laches and the same are accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 8. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 23rd July, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge