IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4767 of 2025 Decided on: 2nd April, 2025 __________________________________________________________ Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus No.8017237 PNR Baboo Ram …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) The present Writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. 2. Initially the case was filed on 22.04.2024 before this Court almost after a period of two years one month. On account of objection being raised regarding pagination 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - and e-filing, the case had been returned. Resultantly, miscellaneous application being CMP No.5804 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay in re-filing the Writ petition. Counsel has given a note that it is not possible to remove the objection in the older version of e-filing . In such circumstances, we condone the delay as such in refiling and allow the CMP No.5804 of 2025. 3. However, issue regarding belated filing of the petition at the first instance still cannot be ignored as the order was passed on 25.03.2022 and writ petition has been filed on 22.04.2024 almost after a period of two years one month. 4. In such circumstances, the matter in our considered opinion, is already covered by the principles laid down in CWP no. 2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Pawna Devi along with connected matters, decided on 25.02.2025, which read as under:- “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 - 3 - 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 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.” 5. The position in this case is even worse and therefore the present Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay - 4 - and laches. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Ranjan Sharma) Judge April 2nd, 2024 (Chiranjeev)