IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 CWP-1654-2025 Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 Devi Ram ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI ---- Present: None for the petitioner. **** Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been taken up for consideration five times and on all the occasions, the request for adjournment was made, which was accepted by the Court. 2. Today again, written request for adjournment has been made on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner is out of station, which is contrary to the settled principle of law settled in Civil Appeal No.9142-2144 of 2010 titled as Ram Siromani Tripathi and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, wherein it has been held that seeking adjournment on the ground that the counsel is out of station is not a valid reason. 3. Further, a bare perusal of the order dated 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Branch, Chandigarh, which is under challenge shows that after being relieved from the Army, a writ VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.08.29 18:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC CWP-1654-2025 -2- petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the same claim, which was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter, he had approached the Tribunal after the promulgation of Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which was not permissible. 4. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, the present petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) August 27, 2025 JUDGE Varinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No VARINDER PRASHAD 2025.08.29 18:28 I attest to the accuracy of this document PHHC