Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 23.05.2025 vs No. 15112586P Ex. Sepoy Vikram Singh on 23 May, 2025
1
2025:HHC:15742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No. 8540 of 2025
Date of decision: 23.05.2025
_______________________________________________________
Union of India & others .....Petitioners
Versus
No. 15112586P Ex. Sepoy Vikram Singh
...Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
_____________________________________________________
For the Petitioner: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy
Solicitor General of India with Mr.
Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
The present writ petition is directed against
the order dated 05.09.2023, passed by the Armed
Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short "the Tribunal")
in Original Application No. 1587 of 2022 and this writ
petition has been filed before this Court on
03.05.2025.
2. During the intervening period, after a delay
of 224 days, miscellaneous applications bearing M.A.
Nos. 1165 and 1166 of 2024 in the aforesaid Original
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Application were filed before the Tribunal, seeking
leave to appeal before the Apex Court, which were
dismissed by the Tribunal on 15.07.2024 on the
ground of delay and laches.
3. In spite of that, no effective steps had been
taken as such to file the present writ petition before
this Court within a reasonable time. The delay is thus
apparent, as almost 10 months has elapsed since the
order in the aforesaid miscellaneous applications has
been passed by the Tribunal and the Union of India has
been consistent and persistent in its approach by filing
these types of applications, which is patently barred.
4. Vide the impugned order dated 05.09.2023
(Annexure P-3), the Tribunal had granted the benefit of
disability pension to the Ex-serviceman on account of
the fact that he had been discharged on 31.08.2019
after being placed in low medical category and before
discharge. He was examined by a duly constituted
Release Medical Board which found that the
Serviceman was suffering from disability, namely
'Diabetes Mellitus type-2 (E-11)' assessed @ 20% for
life, which was neither attributable to nor aggravated
by military service for the reason that its onset is 'in
peace area hence not related to military
service'.
5 it was held by the Tribunal that since the
case of the employee was covered by the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in Dharamvir Singh Vs.
Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 316, apart from the
judgments delivered by the Apex Court in Civil
Appeal No. 2337/2009, Union of India Vs.
Chander Pal, decided on 18.09.2013, Union of
India Vs. Rajbir Singh, (2015) 12 SCC 264, Union
of India Vs. Angad Singh Titaria (2015) 12 SCC
257, Union of India Vs. Manjeet Singh, (2015) 12
SCC 275, Civil Appeal No. 4409/2011, Ex. Hav
Mani Ram Bhaira Vs. Union of India, decided on
11.02.2016, Civil Appeal No. 1695/2016,
Satwinder Singh Vs. Union of India, decided on
11.02.2016 and Ex. Gnr Laxmanram Poonia Vs.
Union of India, (2017) 4 SCC 697, he was entitled
to the dues and admissible arrears. Accordingly, the
same were directed to be paid to him within a period
of three months from the date of passing of the
impugned order, failing which, the arrears were to be
paid alongwith interest @ 8% per annum, which
apparently, the Union of India has invited on its own
volition
6. The usual stock justification for the delay
in filing the writ petition given by the Union of India
was that the opinion (Annexure P-4) was given by the
Attorney General of India only on 18.09.2023.
7. We are of the considered opinion that the
said reason is also without any justification, more so,
because thereafter also, it failed to file the
miscellaneous applications within a reasonable period
and took 224 days to file the appropriate applications
before the Tribunal, which were dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches, while also noting that the
matter was covered.
8. Resultantly, we are of the considered
opinion that thereafter also, there has been inaction
on the part of the Union of India, which is not liable to
be condoned. Keeping in view the fact that we have
already dealt with this issue in CWP 2522 of 2025,
Union of India & others Vs. Pawna Devi and
other connected mattes, decided on 25.02.2025,
we propose to dismiss the case. The relevant part of
the aforesaid judgment reads 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 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 xxxx xxxxxx xxxxx
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 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."
9. Keeping in view the above, this writ petition
is liable to be dismissed on account of the principle of
delay and laches. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.
(G.S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice.
May 23, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma)
(hemlata) Judge.
