Honorary Lieutenanat Sukhpal ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3782 Del

      $~
      18
      * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                 +        W.P.(C)No.5349/2013

      %                       Date of decision: 27st August, 2013

      HONORARY LIEUTENANAT
      SUKHPAL SINGH                    ..... Petitioner
                   Through : Mr. Archana Ramesh, Adv.

                         versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                    Through :         Mr. Jatan Singh,
                                      Mr. Rajat Malhotra and
                                      Mr. Saqib Qureshi, Advs.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The instant writ petition challenges the order dated 12th December, 2012 whereby the Armed Forces Tribunal has refused to condone the delay in filing the statutory complaint by the petitioner.

2. It appears that aggrieved by the failure of the respondents to grant promotion to the rank of Honorary Captain, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.6/2012. This application was withdrawn by the petitioner on the 5th of January, 2012 with liberty from the Armed

WP(C) No.5349/2013 page 1 of 4 Forces Tribunal to file statutory complaint before the respondents within 15 days. The respondents were directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months.

3. It appears that the petitioner filed a representation on the 1 st of March, 2012. However, no action thereon was taken by the respondents necessitating the filing of O.A.No.399/2012. This petition was dismissed by an order dated 12th December, 2012 on the ground that the petitioner had not availed opportunity sought by him and given by Armed Forces Tribunal by making representation within the permitted time.

4. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th December, 2012 and the failure of the respondents to decide the same.

5. It is undisputed that even till date the respondents have not disposed of the statutory complaint dated 1st March, 2012 of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner had explained the circumstances in which 38 days delay has occasioned in filing the complaint dated 1 st March, 2012. It is explained that after the order dated 5th January, 2012 of the Armed Forces Tribunal permitting filing of the statutory complaint within 15 days, the same could have been filed by the 20th of January, 2012. The petitioner's counsel was able to prepare the statutory complaint and obtained the signatures of the petitioner on the 16th of February, 2012. However, on account of outstation duties and collection of annexure duly typed took another 15 days

WP(C) No.5349/2013 page 2 of 4 and only in these circumstances the statutory complaint was filed on 1st of March, 2012.

7. The circumstances explained by the petitioner appear to be bona fide. Even though the petitioner could have more efficiently filed the complaint within the time granted, however, it cannot be said that the delay was unreasonable or malafide. The petitioner has nothing to gain by causing delay in filing of the statutory complaint and consideration thereof.

8. By the order dated 5th of January, 2012, the learned Tribunal has granted six months time to respondents for disposing of the petitioner's application, which was not disposed of till 12th December, 2012.

This is another circumstance which would persuade us to accept the explanation tendered by the petitioner for the delay which has resulted.

9. Interests of justice merit that the delay in filing the complaint by the petitioner is condoned which we hereby do. The same ought directed to be considered and decided on merits.

In view of the above, we direct as follows:-

(i) the order dated 12th December, 2012 of the Armed Forces Tribunal is not sustainable and is hereby set aside and quashed.

(ii) the respondents shall take a considered view on the statutory complaint dated 1st March, 2012 filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from today. The order which is passed shall thereupon be communicated to the petitioner.

WP(C) No.5349/2013 page 3 of 4 This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Dasti to parties.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE

(DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE AUGUST 27, 2013 mk

WP(C) No.5349/2013 page 4 of 4