1 2025:HHC:21387 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 10570 of 2025 Date of Decision : 03.07.2025 ________________________________________________________ Union of India & others …..Petitioners Versus No. 2660946A Ex. Naik Piar Chand ….Respondent. ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.03.2019, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench Circuit Bench Chandigarh at Shimla in Original Application No. 2439 of 2018, in case titled as Piar Chand Vs. Union of India & others, whereby the Original Application was allowed and the applicant was held entitled to disability 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pension from the date of his discharge @ 30% which is rounded off to 50% as against 30% for life long. 2. Thereafter, the Union of India was stated to have filed two applications, i.e. M.As, No. 493 and 494 of 2020, seeking leave to file an appeal. Vide order dated 05.03.2025, the applications were ordered to have been put up before the Tribunal on 07.11.2024 and were directed to be listed before Circuit Bench at Shimla on 05.03.2025. We are informed that the said applications have also been dismissed. 3. The present writ petition as such has been filed on 29.05.2025, almost after a period of six years from the passing of the order by the Tribunal in the Original Application. 4. We are of the considered opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 25.02.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No. 2522 of 2025, titled as Union of India & others VS. Pawna Devi a/w connected matters, whereby we have dismissed a number of writ petitions, while coming to the conclusion that after a period of one year, the Union of India would be debarred from filing the writ 3 petition. The following principles have been laid down in the aforesaid judgment. “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. 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. 4 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 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 to 24……………. 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 5 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 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 6 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. July 03, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.