Sr. No. 12 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2525/2024 Rakesh Kumar …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate V/s Union of India and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 01.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.08.2024, passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Jammu Bench, whereby OA No. 121/2024, titled Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India and others, has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. The petitioner had filed the OA before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), Jammu Bench, at Jammu, seeking a direction to quash the final result of the promotional exam from Hawaldar to Naib Subedar, dated 05.01.2024, by which the petitioner was declared unsuccessful. A direction was also sought to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion along with consequential service benefits. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the result of the petitioner was declared on 05.01.2024 and that the petitioner had approached the competent authority by way of a representation. The respondents have, till date, not taken any decision on his representation. This constrained him to approach the AFT, which, without affording him any opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the OA, dismissed the same. 4. Per contra, the respondents submit that since the OA was filed beyond the period of limitation, the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed solely on the ground of delay, without affording him an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay and to explain the reasons for the same. 6. Though the Tribunal at the very first instance asked the petitioner to explain regarding filing of the same within limitation but refuse to accept the response. It is submitted that the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing application and hear it on merits provided sufficient cause for the same is shown. Section 22 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, provides for limitation, which reads as under: 22. Limitation .-(1) The Tribunal shall not admit an application¬- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 21 has been made unless the application is made within six months from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where a petition or a representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 21 has been made and the period of six months has expired thereafter without such final order having been made; (c) in a case where the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal became exercisable under this Act, in respect of the matter to which such order relates and no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before the High Court. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Tribunal may admit an application after the period of six months referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, or prior to the period of three years specified in clause (c), if the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period. 7. The Tribunal, thus, is vested with sufficient powers to admit an application beyond the period of six months referred to in clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1). The submission of the petitioner is that he had submitted a representation to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, which has not been considered and decided, and consequently, there was a delay of two months in filing the O.A. 8. The result of the promotional exam was declared on 10.01.2024, and the petition was filed on 07.08.2024. The delay has occurred only because the petitioner’s representation was not decided. The Tribunal is vested with the power to condone the delay in filing the petition; thus, the petitioner should have been granted an opportunity to explain cause for delay in filing the O.A. 9. This fact has not been controverted by the learned DSGI for the respondents. 10. In view of the aforesaid position, the substantive right of the petitioner cannot be set aside solely on the ground of delay without providing him a reasonable opportunity of explaining the delay. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the issue of limitation. The Tribunal shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, in accordance with law, and decide the matter expeditiously. 11. Disposed of. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu: 01.07.2025 Vishal Khajuria