Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Union Of India vs No. 14367388X Ex Naik Pritam Singh on 18 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 4
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Pronounced on: 18.10.2025.
Uploaded on: .10.2025.
WP(C) No. 1717/2025
CM No. 3909/2025
1. Union of India .....Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Th. Its Secretary to Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi, 110011
2. Additional Director General
Personnel Services,
Adjutant General's Branch,
Integrated HQ of Ministry of
Defence (Army), DHQ PO, New
Delhi, 110001
3. OIC Records, Artillery Records,
Nasik Camp Road, C/O 56 APO.
4. Principal Controller of Defence
Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi
Ghat, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh,
211014
Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Sr. Advocate (DSGI) with
Mr. Eishan Dadichi, CGSC.
vs
No. 14367388X Ex Naik Pritam Singh, ..... Respondent(s)
S/O Late Shri Dharam Singh, R/O Village
Baspur, Parlah, Post Office: Arnia, Tehsil R.
S. Pura, District Jammu, J&K
Through: Mr. Rajnish Raina, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. P. L. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Sangotra, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
18.10.2025
1. In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
Union of India & three ors. seek to challenge the judgment and order
dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar
Bench at Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in Original Application No.
460/2018 titled "No. 14367388X Ex Naik Pritam Singh vs. Union of
India and others" to the extent it does not restrict the payment of
arrears to three years immediately preceding the filing of OA (supra).
2. The impugned judgment is challenged on the ground that the
Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the respondent had
approached the Tribunal after more than two decades of the accrual
of cause of action and, therefore, could not have been held entitled to
the arrears for the entire period.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that this petition is hit by delay and laches as the petitioners
have approached this Court after about six and half years after the
passing of the judgment impugned. Reliance is placed by learned
counsel for the respondent on a Division Bench judgment of this
Court dated 15.07.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 1804/2025, in which,
under similar set of circumstances, this Court has declined to
interfere with the judgment passed in OA on the ground of inordinate
delay and laches.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
judgment impugned, we are of the considered opinion that this
petition is hit by delay and laches.
5. Indisputably, the judgment in OA No. 460/2018, which is impugned
in this petition, was pronounced on 26.09.2018 and the same
unequivocally held the respondent entitled to arrears, without
imposing any restriction of time, to be paid by the petitioners, within
a period of four months. The judgment was all along in the notice of
the petitioners. The execution petition filed by the respondent before
the Tribunal in the year 2023 is being contested by the petitioners
and, therefore, they cannot plead ignorance of the judgment or its
import on any ground whatsoever.
6. We have gone through the memorandum of writ petition and do not
find any good explanation coming forth to explain the delay of more
than six and half years in approaching this Court. Relying upon the
judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court (supra), we are of
the view that this petition, too, is hit by inordinate delay and laches
and, therefore, cannot be entertained.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this
petition and the same, is accordingly, dismissed along with
connected application(s), if any.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
Jammu
18.10.2025
Sahil Padha
