'Union Cannot Be Permitted Free Play': Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Centre's Plea Challenging AFT Order Citing 2 Yrs Delay

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of pleas filed by the Centre Government challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) on the ground of delay, observing that the Union of India cannot be permitted free play, to challenge the orders at its own whims and fancies after a period of over two years.

Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma said, "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 Court further said that 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.

A batch of four writ petitions were filed by the Union Government challenging the order passed by AFT, Chandigarh, Regional Circuit Bench at Shimla. The AFT had granted certain pension benefits to the Officers in 2022 and the amounts were to be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy, failing which it was to carry interest @ 8% from the date of the order till realization of the entire amount.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, the decision to file the writ petitions was only taken on 18.10.2023 after taking the opinion of the Attorney General to file the writ petitions and thus, the inaction is clear, as the order impugned was passed more than a year earlier.

The Court relied on several Apex Court rulings including, Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, where it has been held that a litigant acquire certain rights and if the Court finds that there is negligence in prosecuting the case then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.

Speaking for the bench Chief Justice Sandhawalia noted that 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," the bench added.

Stating that "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," the Court held that "no indulgence can be granted."

Consequently, while observing that "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 Court opined that the Union of India cannot raise the issue on merits.

Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, in all the petitions.

Title: Union of India and Others v. Pawna Devi [along with connected matters]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 01

Click here to read/download the order