Sr. No.10 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 1896/2024 1. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011 2. Additional Director General Personnel Services, Adjutant General’s Branch, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (army), DHQ PO, New Delhi-110 001. 3. OIC Records, Artillery Records, Nasik Camp Road, C/o 56 APO. 4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211014. …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Eishaan Dadhichi, CGSC V/s No 14367388X Ex Naik Pritam Singh, S/o Late Shri Dharam Singh, R/o Village: Baspur Parlah, Post Office: Arnia, Tehsil: RS Pura, District: Jammu (J&K). …..Respondent(s) Through:- None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICESANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 26.08.2025 (ORAL) 1. Impugned in this petition, filed by Union of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order dated 26.09.2018 passed in OA No. 460/2018 titled “Pritam Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.” 3 WP(C) No. 1896/2024 whereby, the Tribunal has allowed the OA relied upon the judgment passed in the case of “Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ram Avtar” Civil Appeal No. 418/2012 decided on 12.12.2014 and held the respondent entitled to the benefit of rounding off along with interest @ of 8% per annum from the date of order. 2. The impugned judgment is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated that the respondent had approached the Tribunal after more than two decades of the accrual of cause of action and, therefore, could not have been held entitled to the arrears for the entire period. However, the stand of the respondent is that this petition is hit by delay and laches as the petitioners have approached this Court after more than six years of passing of the judgment in OA No. 416/2018. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is hit by delay and laches. 4. Indisputably, OA No. 460/2018 was decided by the Tribunal on 26.09.2018, whereas, the instant petition has been filed in the year 2024 i.e. after about six years of the passing of the judgment. It has also been brought to our notice that the judgment impugned was implemented by the respondents partially, whereas, with regard to the payment of arrears, the petitioners are contesting the matter before the Tribunal. The execution petition filed before the Tribunal in the year 2020 is still under consideration. 5. We have gone through the memorandum of writ petition in its entirety and do not find any good explanation coming forth to 3 WP(C) No. 1896/2024 explain the delay of about six years in approaching this Court. Relying upon the earlier judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 15.07.2025 in WP(C) No. 1804/2025, we find this petition hit by inordinate delay and laches. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and the same, is accordingly, dismissed along with connected application(s), if any. 7. Dismissal of this petition on the ground of delay and laches shall not prejudice the petitioners in respect of their stand, if any, taken by them or to be taken by them, before the Tribunal in the execution proceedings. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 26.08.2025 Diksha Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No