Union of India and Ors. Vs Col Khem Singh Mandhotra

( 2025:HHC:5633 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 3253 of 2025 Decided on: 11^th March, 2025

__________________________________________________________ Union of India and others ....Petitioners. Versus SL-3092H Lt.Col. Khem Singh Mandhotra ...Respondent __________________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Ms. Parul Negi, Advocate.

¶7

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶8

The present Writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.09.2023, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, whereby the Original Application No.1603 of 2021 was allowed in favour of the ex-servicemen and he was granted the benefit of disability pension.

¶9

The said order was never sought to be challenged by the Union of India and accordingly led to the filing of the Execution petition bearing MA(E) 02 of 2024 in the said Original Application by the ex-servicemen. The Tribunal exactly after a year later noticed that no Writ petition has been filed and directed the Union of India to comply with the order failing which coercive steps will be taken. The

¶10

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

¶11

2 -

¶12

order passed by the Tribunal dated 05.09.2024 reads as under:-

¶13

“As per last order, the Union of India has taken the plea that Union of India has decided to file the Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh but by now no writ petition has been filed and adjournment has again been sought on the same ground. There is no justifiable ground for non implementation of the order by merely taking said plea.

¶14

We direct the Union of India to comply with the order by the next date filing which coercive process shall be issued against the erring officers for non implementation of the order under execution.

¶15

List on 07.11.2024 before Circuit Bench, Shimla.”

¶16

Apparently aggrieved by the said order present writ petition has now been filed on 28.02.2025. In such circumstances, the matter, in our considered opinion, is already covered by the principles of delay and laches laid down in CWP No. 2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India and others vs. Pawna Devi alongwith connected matters, decided on 25.02.2025, the same read as under:-

¶17

“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

¶18

3 -

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.”

¶22