Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On:30.05.2025 vs No.3976555N Ex. Nk (Ts) on 30 May, 2025

2025:HHC:17175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT SHIMLA CWP No.9014 of 2025 Decided on:30.05.2025 __________________________________________________________ Union of India & Others ...Petitioners

Versus

No.3976555N Ex. NK (TS) ...Respondent Nopay Ram 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. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral]

The present Writ Petition is directed against

the order dated 04.10.2018, passed by the Armed Forces

Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Bench (Circuit Bench at

Shimla) (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No.1143 of 2016,

titled as Nopay Ram versus Union of India and Others.

The Union of India in its usual belated stage, has

challenged the same, whereby the Tribunal, as such,

allowed the application and granted the disability

pension to the applicant-petitioner by assessing his

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

-2- 2025:HHC:17175

disability at 20% for 10 years and therefore, directed the

respondents-appellants herein to release the arrears

accrued and to conduct the Re-survey Medical Board to

assess his future disability. The arrears payable to him

were restricted to three years immediately preceding the

date of filing of O.A. No.1143 of 2016, i.e. 20.07.2016.

2. After the delay of 668 days, miscellaneous

applications Nos.942 & 943 of 2020 were then preferred

before the Tribunal for filing application seeking Leave to

Appeal against the aforesaid order, which applications

were dismissed on 20th December, 2022 being time

barred and devoid of any merits,

3. Inaction on the part of the Union of India has

further been compounded now by preferring the present

writ petition, which was filed on 17.05.2025, after almost

more than two and half years, post the decision by the

Tribunal, when it dismissed the applications on

20.12.2022, which as noticed above, were barred by 668

days. Categorical direction, as such, had been issued by

the Tribunal but no legal remedy has been availed by the

Union of India within prescribed period or even within

reasonable time.

-3- 2025:HHC:17175

4. Though we are of the considered opinion that

strictly the Union of India is in contempt of the orders of

the Tribunal and in such circumstances, for its inaction

and negligence, we do not propose, as such, to interfere

with the order of the Tribunal, at this belated stage

considering the main order was passed way back on

04.10.2018.

5. The Counsel for the Union of India is fair

enough to submit that in similar circumstances, we have

already dismissed a bunch of cases, the lead case of

which was CWP No.2522 of 2025, titled as Union of

India & Ors. Versus Pawna Devi, on 25.02.2025 by

noting that a reasonable period of delay can only be

condoned by this Court not beyond a period of one year

and no efforts was made by the Union of India to

challenge the orders as such passed by the Tribunal

within the said period. The relevant paragraphs read 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

-4- 2025:HHC:17175

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 to 24 xxx xxx xxx xxx
                                 -5-                      2025:HHC:17175

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. In spite 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."

6. Keeping in view the delay, we are inclined to

impose exemplary costs for frivolous litigation which is

being preferred by Union of India and which is a classic

case of the certificate cases may to ensure that

administrative action is not taken against the competent

-6- 2025:HHC:17175

authority, who had faulted in not preferring the legal

remedy within the time-frame. Apparently, the certificate

is being taken from this Court on account of filing the

writ petitions that the matter has become final. It is to

the Union of India to put its house in order and take

action against the appropriate officers concerned, who