2025:HHC:20097 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA CWP No.1623 of 2025, CWP No.1624 of 2025 and 1626 of 2025 Decided on: 24.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ CWP No.1623 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus No.13746841 Ex L/NK Naginder Singh ...Respondent CWP No.1624 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus No.5341680N, Ex. NK Shiv Kumar ...Respondent CWP No.1626 of 2025 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus No.4560379A Ex. NK Desh Raj ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 2025:HHC:20097 ) - 2 - 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, in CWP No.1624 of 2025. Mr. Bhupender Pathania, Advocate, in CWP No.1626 of 2025. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Writ Petitions are directed against the orders passed by Armed Forces Tribunal in its usual belated stage. The orders under challenge in the three writ petitions, as such, are dated 04.11.2022, 27.03.2023 and 24.03.2022. The first two writ petitions in question, as such, were filed on 17.01.2025 and third one was filed on 12.01.2024. 2. We have already taken a similar view for dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Union of India at a belated stage against the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, beyond a period of one year. As noticed herein also the period of delay, as such, is around a period of two years. It is also pertinent to notice that out of three cases, in two cases, the applicant Ex-servicemen had 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:20097 ) - 3 - also sought to implement the orders by filing miscellaneous applications [E 373 of 2023 in OA No. 1881 of 2021] and the order was passed by the Tribunal in case of Naginder Singh versus Union of India and Others, on 05.09.2024 that coercive process shall be issued against the erring officers for non implementation of the order under execution and the matter was thereafter ordered to be listed on 07.11.2024, while noting at that stage, that the plea was taken that Union of India has decided to file writ petition, but no writ petition had been filed. The said order dated 05.09.2024 reads as under: “As per last order, the Union of India has taken the plea that Union of India has decided to file the Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh but by now no writ petition has been filed and adjournment has again been sought on the same ground. There is no justifiable ground for non implementation of the order by merely taking said plea. We direct the Union of India to comply with the order by the next date failing which coervice process shall be issued against the erring officers for non implementation of the order under execution.” 3. Similarly in Shiv Kumar’s case, similar order was passed on the said date also by the Tribunal. It is thus apparent that only once the Ex-servicemen, as such were pressing for the implementation of the orders, a 2025:HHC:20097 ) - 4 - decision has been taken to file the writ petition. Thereafter also Union of India took four months time to file the present writ petitions. 4. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in similar circumstances, we have already dismissed a bunch of cases, the lead case of which was CWP No.2522 of 2025, titled as Union of India & Ors. Versus Pawna Devi, on 25.02.2025 by noting that a reasonable period of delay can only be condoned by this Court not beyond a period of one year and no effort was made by the Union of India to challenge the orders as such passed by the Tribunal within the said period. The relevant paragraphs read as under: “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 2025:HHC:20097 ) - 5 - 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. 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. As per averments made in the writ petitions itself, the decision to file the writ petitions was only taken on 18.10.2023 after taking the opinion of the learned Attorney General to file the writ petitions and thus, the inaction is clear, as the order impugned was passed more than a year earlier. 10. As noticed, the Tribunal had passed various orders way back in May, August & November, 2022 and for a period ranging to 1 year to 1½ years, the Union of India opted not to challenge the said orders. 11 to 24 xxx xxx xxx xxx 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 the Hon’ble Apex Court in the principle 2025:HHC:20097 ) - 6 - 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. In spite 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 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. In such circumstances, counsel for the Union of India could not distinguish the present set of cases from the earlier bunch and therefore, we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view in the present writ petitions. 2025:HHC:20097 ) - 7 - Resultantly, the present writ petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June, 24 2025 [himani/Shivender]