Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1008 (HP)

Union of India v. Kiran Chandel

2025-05-14

G.S. SANDHAWALILA, RANJAN SHARMA

body2025
JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ. 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2021 [Annexure P-3] passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh Regional Bench Circuit Bench at Shimla, in OA No. 1488 of 2016, titled as Smt. Kiran Chandel vs. Union of India and others. 2. The Tribunal as such by the said order restored the family pension in favour of the applicant [respondent herein], who was widow of an ex-serviceman and whose family pension has been stopped on the ground that she got married to younger brother of thesaid ex-serviceman, as she had two daughters to maintain. It has also come on record that second husband of the respondent also expired and the present appellants had discontinued the family pension, though, one daughter was given the same. 3. It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent by placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Principal Bench of Armed Forces Tribunal in Smt. Saroj Devi Vs. Union of India and others, 2010 SCC Online AFT 41. 4. We are of the considered opinion that the present writ petition filed at the belated stage i.e. on 29.03.2025, after a period of more than three years, is liable to be dismissed, keeping view the order passed by us in connected matters, lead case of which was CWP No.2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Pawna Devi alongwith connected matters, decided on 25.02.2025. Relevant portion of said 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 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. vs. 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. 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 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. 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. Even otherwise, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noticed above, filing of the present writ petition at the belated stage and to ask the widow, as such, to contest such matters at the hands of the Union of India, is highly unjust and unfair. 6. Resultantly, there is no other option, but to dismiss the present writ petition on account of the principle of delay and laches and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.