( 2025:HHC:4017 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 2521 of 2025 Decided on: 27th February, 2025 ____________________________________________________ Union of India and others ....Petitioners. Versus No. 3972738M Ex. Sep Subhash 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 09.05.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal. 2. The present petition has been preferred only on 03.02.2025 after a period of more than 1 ½ years. Perusal of the case would go on to show that the matter was disposed of by noting that it is covered by the judgment of larger Bench of the Tribunal. No steps have been taken over a year and half to challenge the said order. 3. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the case is 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - already covered by the principles laid down in CWP no. 2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Pawna Devi alongwith connected matters decided on 25.02.2025. The same reads 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 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 - 3 - 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.” 4. The position in this case is even worse and therefore the present Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 5. All pending application stands disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 27th February, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge