IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8280 of 2025 Decided on: 20.05.2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus Suraj Chandel ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.05.2022, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short “The Tribunal”), in Original Application No.3606 of 2018, which has been filed on 03.04.2005. 2. The perusal of the said order would go on to show that the Original Application was allowed by the Tribunal and order of discharge from service dated 23.04.2016 (Annexure A-1) during the training period was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - set aside and directions were issued that the Union of India would reinstate the Ex-Serviceman, provided he is found medically fit. The Tribunal found that during the training, the applicant suffered an injury as such of a wrist drop while doing tripping etc. Therefore, the exercise of declaring him medically unfit by the Board was done on 19.04.2016 thereafter according to the ailment and he was also referred to the Leprosy Centre. The petition as such was allowed on the ground that the procedure prescribed has not been followed, as there was no Review Medical Board conducted and in these circumstances, the order of reinstatement was passed. 3. Surprisingly, inspite of the directions issued, which would give right to the Ex-Serviceman to be reinstated, no affirmative steps were taken at that point of time to challenge the said order. 4. We are informed during the course of arguments on inquiry by the Court that the Review Medical Board has found him fit after the order was passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. Apparently, after a period of two years, MA Nos.11 and 12 of 2024 filed in the said OA No.3606 of 2018, were dismissed on - 3 - 22.03.2024. The present writ petition has been filed thereafter on 03.04.2025 after a period of one year. Thus, on all counts, Union of India’s inaction is apparent on the face of the record. 5. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition is governed by the principle laid down in a judgment dated 25.02.2025 rendered by this Court in a bunch of cases, the leas case of which is CWP No.2522 of 2025, titled as Union of India & Ors. Versus Pawna Devi. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- “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. - 4 - 5. The stock reason given for delay is that in Civil Appeal No.447 of 2023 titled as Union of India &Ors. Versus Parashotam Dass, was decided on 21.03.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that there is no restriction to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. The fall back has been made on an opinion dated 18.09.2023 given by learned Attorney General to file writ petitions to challenge the said order and therefore, justification has been made that a decision was taken on 18.10.2023, based on the said advice. 6. It is also not disputed that prior to the order passed in the case of Parashotam Dass [supra], there was a right of appeal to the Supreme Court under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act of 2007, prescribing a period of 90 days of the said decision under Section 30 of the Act. 7. There is nothing to show that after passing of the order of Tribunal, the Union of India had preferred its remedy before the Hon’ble Apex Court within the prescribed period. Only on account of the fact that judgment has been passed in the case of Parashotam Dass [supra] and opinion has been given by learned Attorney General to a set of cases, the - 5 - sufficient cause is sought to be made out. 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’ble Apex 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. As per averments made in the writ petitions itself, the decision to file the writ petitions was only taken on 18.10.2023 after taking the opinion of the learned Attorney General to file the writ petitions and thus, the inaction is clear, as the order impugned was passed more than a year earlier. 10. As noticed, the Tribunal had passed various orders way back in May, August & November, 2022 and for a period ranging to 1 year to 1½ years, the Union of India opted not to challenge the said orders. 11 to 24 xxx xxx xxx 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 - 6 - 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 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 - 7 - 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.” 6. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinionthat there is no plausible explanation as such to condone the delay, as there is negligence and in action on the part of the Union of India. Therefore, it is not justified to ask an Ex-Serviceman to contest the matter, at this belated stage, once he was under the impression that litigation has now been finalized after a considerate long period of time. 7. Resultantly, we dismiss the writ petition on account of delay and laches. - 8 - 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 20, 2025 [Chiranjeev/Shivender]