HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2314/2025 1. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110011 through its Secretary. 2. The Chief of the Army Staff, Army HQ, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Prayagraj-211014. 4. The Officer-in-Charge, The Grenadiers Records, 908776, C/o 56 APO. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Vikas Sharma, CGSC v/s No 2664603F Ex Hav Himat Singh, Age 65 years, S/o Sh. Karnail Singh, R/o Village Samlar, Tehsil-Mahanpur, District Jammu (J&K). .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. B S Sarmal, Advocate with Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE O R D E R 22.08.2025 (O R A L) 1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Union of India & three ors. seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu [“the Tribunal”] in Original Application No. 688/2019 titled “Himat Singh Vs. Union of India & Sr. No. 37 2 WP (C) No. 2314/2025 Ors.” to the extent it does not restrict the payment of arrears to three years immediately preceding the filing of OA (supra). 2. The impugned judgment is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact 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. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this petition is hit by delay and laches as the petitioners have approached this Court after about six and half years after the passing of the judgment impugned. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondent on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 15.07.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 1804/2025, in which, under similar set of circumstances, this Court has declined to interfere with the judgment passed in OA on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. 4. 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. 5. Indisputably, the judgment in OA No. 688/2018, which is impugned in this petition, was pronounced on 07.01.2019 and the same unequivocally held the respondent entitled to arrears, without imposing any restriction of time, to be paid by the petitioners, within a period of four months. The judgment was all along in the notice of the petitioners. The contempt petition filed by the 3 WP (C) No. 2314/2025 respondent before the Tribunal in the year 2020 is being contested by the petitioners and, therefore, they cannot plead ignorance of the judgment or its import on any ground whatsoever. 6. We have gone through the memorandum of writ petition and do not find any good explanation coming forth to explain the delay of more than six and half years in approaching this Court. Relying upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court (supra), we are of the view that this petition, too, is hit by inordinate delay and laches and, therefore, cannot be entertained. 7. 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. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 22.08.2025 Manan Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No