( 2025:HHC:4014 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2309 of 2025 Decided on: 27th February, 2025 ____________________________________________________ Union of India and others ....Petitioners. Versus No. 3965133-H, Ex. Hav.Prem Chand ...Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) The present Writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. 2. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the application for condonation of delay in re-filing being CMP No. 2185 of 2025 is allowed. 3. In the present case, it is to be noticed that the Review application has also been filed against the order dated 19.05.2022, which was barred by 94 days’ and the same was condoned, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - whereas the review application was dismissed on 02.11.2022. 4. No active steps were taken to file the Writ petition thereafter. Now the Writ petition has been filed in January, 2024. 5. In our considered opinion, the case is covered by the principles laid down in CWP no. 2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India vs. Pawna Devi alongwith connected matters, decided on 25.02.2025, which read as under:- “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 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. Inspite 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 - 3 - 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.” 6. The position in this case is even worse and therefore the present Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 7. The Writ petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 27th February, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge