2025:HHC:6016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA CWP No.3425 of 2025 Decided on:12.03.2025 __________________________________________________________ Union of India & ors. ...Petitioners Versus No.3996123A Ex. Hav Subhash ...Respondent Chand Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Bench (Circuit Bench at Shimla) in O.A. No.1509 of 2022, titled as Subhash Chand versus Union of India & Others. The Tribunal has enhanced the benefit of disability element of pension of 50% as against 30% on the Original Application filed by the respondent-Ex-serviceman. 2. From the date of decision dated 11.10.2023, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:6016 - 2 - no active steps have been taken by the Union of India to file a Writ Petition, which has now been filed on 17.01.2025. It is apparent that Union of India has been dragging its feet and now filed the Writ Petition, which is on the face of it barred by time and liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 3. In similar situation, we have already disposed of number of cases of Union of India whereby delay of over a period of a year by noticing that we cannot permit the vested right which has come in favour of the Ex-servicemen to be contested at a belated stage. 4. In such circumstances, the matter in our considered opinion, is already covered by the principles as laid down in CWP No. 2522 of 2025, titled as Union of India and others vs. Pawna Devi along with connected matters, decided on 25.02.2025, the same 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 2025:HHC:6016 - 3 - 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 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.” 5. Keeping in view the fact that the matter is covered by the above said principles of law and there is no plausible reason to take a different view and the present writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, which is dismissed accordingly. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand 2025:HHC:6016 - 4 - disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge March 12, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]