Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others vs 636232-S Ex Jwo Baban Singh

1. By means of this petition filed in 2026, the petitioner- Union of India has challenged the judgment and order dated 01.02.2023 passed in ).A. No. 750 of 2022 (636232-S Ex Jwo Baban Singh (Retd.) Vs. Union of India and Others).

¶11

2. Apparently, the petitioner has approached this Court after more than three years of passing of the impugned judgment.

¶12

3. On being confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Paragraph Nos. 22 and 23 wherein according to him the delay has been explained. The said paragraphs read as under:-

¶13

"22. That as far as delay which, has occurred in filing the Writ Petition, the same is not deliberate but the same is bonafide and genuine which deserves to be condoned. It is stated that the judgment was delivered by the Armed Force Tribunal on 01.02.2023.

¶14

Thereafter, the matter was examined at the level of petitioner No. 1. who decided that, the matter was fit for challenge by way of the instant Writ Petition. However, the said decision could only be taken after the advice by Attorney General of India i.e. for filing of the Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Courts in respect of similar matters relating to award of disability pension by the Armed Forces Tribunal. Thereafter papers were routed through the different desks and examined by the competent authorities of the Indian Air Force. Ultimately, the deponent contacted the learned Deputy Solicitor

¶15

WRIA No. 2311 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

General for preparation of Writ Petition.

¶18

23. That subsequently sometime was consumed in collecting the necessary papers, drafting of the Writ Petition and in typing. That for the reasons aforesaid, the delay in filing the Writ Petition is bonafide and genuine and is liable to be condoned. "

¶19

4. A bare reading of the aforesaid averments will demonstrate the casual manner in which this petition has been filed. No date etc. has been given. The only explanation offered is that after passing of the judgment dated 01.02.2023, the matter was examined at the level of petitioner no. 1, who decided that the matter was fit for challenge by way of instant writ petition. Nothing has been stated as to when this exercise was done and how three years were consumed only for this purpose. It has then been stated that advise of the Attorney General of India was taken. Here again, neither the advise is annexed nor the date is mentioned as to when this happened. In spite of it, in Paragraph No. 22 it has been stated that the delay is not deliberate but the same is bonafide and genuine, which deserves to be condoned. These words have no meaning at all. There is absolutely no explanation for such delay and laches of three years. Paragraph No. 23 merely goes on to say that some time was consumed in collecting the necessary papers, drafting of the writ petition and in its typing and for this reason delay in filing the writ petition is bonafide and genuine is hardly an acceptable explanation. This cannot be treated as any explanation whatsoever for inordinate delay of three years. The petition suffers from delay and laches.

¶20

5. The writ petition is dismissed only for this reason.

¶21

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) February 26 , 2026 Anuj Singh

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others v. 636232-S Ex Jwo Baban Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi and 3 Others v. 636232-S Ex Jwo Baban Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Zahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Govt. Lko. and 4 Others

M/S Gayatri Developwell Private Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Ankit Raj vs Anju Sharma and 4 Others

Union of India, Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and 4 Others vs Ex Ser No. 12898401 N Naik Gd/Ta Narayan Dutt Punetha

Rajesh Kumar Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Manish Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Bikanervala Foods Pvt. Ltd. Thru Auth. Rep. Mr. R.K.Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Environment Forests and Climate Change Lucknow and Ors.