2025:HHC:15737 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8110 of 2025 a/w CWP No.8278 of 2025 Decided on: 20.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ CWP No.8110 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus No.3982336-H Ex. Naik Udham Singh ...Respondent CWP No.8278 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus No.13726158 Ex Rfn Swarup Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner(s): Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present writ petitionsare directed against 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:15737 - 2 - the orders dated 19.05.2022 and 20.12.2021, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. The present writ petitions have been filed almost after a period of three years on 29.03.2025, in both cases. The impugned orders of Tribunal have directed for counting of formal service of Ex-Serviceman towards the Defence Security Corps [for short DSC] service. 2. Resultantly, the Tribunal placedreliance upon the judgment passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Union of India & Another Versus Surinder Singh Parmar, Civil Appeal No.9389 of 2014, [2015] 3 SCC 404, to grant the said relief. 3. A Perusal of the order would go on to show that apparently there was a consent and the counsel for the Union of India also agreed that the matter was covered by the said judgment and inspite of this, Union of India has chosen to file the writ petition. 4. Perusal of the opinion dated 18.09.2023 of the learned Attorney General of India and therefore, the basis of delay has not properly explained shows that there was no reference to Surinder Singh Parmar’s case. In similar 2025:HHC:15737 - 3 - circumstances the Union of India chose not to file the writ petitions on time and they had been filed at a belated stage with the usual excuse that there was an opinion dated 18.09.2023, from the learned Attorney General. It is to be noticed that we have already dealt with the issue of delay on this pretext in another bunch of cases which we have consistently followed thereafter. The principle laid down in CWP No.2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. Versus Pawna Devi along with connected matters, decided on 25.02.2025, 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 2025:HHC:15737 - 4 - justifiable reasons. 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 2025:HHC:15737 - 5 - Attorney General to a set of cases, the 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 2025:HHC:15737 - 6 - 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 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 2025:HHC:15737 - 7 - 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.” 5. 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 in taking action on the part of the Union of India. Therefore, it could not be 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 over considerate long period of time. 6. Resultantly, we dismiss the writ petitions on 2025:HHC:15737 - 8 - account of delay and laches. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 8. Copy of this order be placed in the other file. - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge May 20, 2025 [Chiranjeev/Shivender]