HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 2491/2025 1. Union of India and others through its Secretary to Govt. 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-110001. 3. OIC Record, DSC Records, PIN-901277, C/o 56 APO. 4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh-211014 .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI v/s 1. No. 13735424F Ex. Hav Om Parkash, S/o Shri Seva Ram, R/o Village Kalayana, Post Office, Arnia, Tehsil RS Pura, District Jammu, (J&K). .....Respondent(s) Through :- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 09.09.2025 1. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged an order and judgment dated 23.03.2019, passed by Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu (“the Tribunal”), in O.A. No. 16/2019, titled “Ex. Hav Om Prakash v. Union of India and others”, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent, placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Ram Avatar, (Civil Appeal No. 418/2012), decided on 10.12.2014. Sr. No. 60 2 WP(C) No. 2491/2025 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is perfectly legal and, therefore, does not call for any interference. 3. This petition filed by the petitioners, is also hit by delay and laches, as the judgment impugned, which was passed on 29.03.2019, was all along within the notice and knowledge of the petitioners and yet no immediate steps were taken to challenge the same. The writ petition filed after more than six years is clearly belated. That apart, the view taken by the Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Avatar’s case, also cannot be found fault with. 4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the Union of India has accepted the position as laid down in Ram Avatar’s case and that this petition was filed only seeking to restrict the payment of arrears to three years prior to filing of the O.A. 5. As we have already noticed that the petition is hit by delay and laches, therefore, the question sought to be agitated cannot be gone into. 6. Dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU 09.09.2025 Vishal Khajuria