Dismissed¶41

Union of India and Ors. v. Jaimuni and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Apr 2025CWP/4628/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, CWP No. 4628 of 2025, decided 01.04.2025 by Vivek Singh Thakur, J (bench with Ranjan Sharma, J). Union of India v. No. 14273241 Sh. Jaimuni & Ors. Writ petition against CAT order dated 29.03.2022 dismissed for delay and laches; principles of Union of India v. Pawna Devi (CWP No. 2522 of 2025, 25.02.2025) applied; condonation of delay in re-filing (CMP No. 5593 of 2025) allowed; consent order in terms of CWP No.2083 of 2007 noted; no consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in re-filing the writ petition after removal of Registry objections is allowed (CMP No. 5593 of 2025). ¶24

Union of India and Ors. Vs Jaimuni and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:HHC:8838

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 4628 of 2025 Decided on: 1^st April, 2025

¶4

____________________________________________________ Union of India and others

¶5

....Petitioners.

¶6

Versus

¶7

No. 14273241, Sh. Jaimuni & Ors.

….Respondents.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶12

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶13

For the Petitioners: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)

¶15

The present Writ petition is directed against the order

¶16

dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶17

Initially the case was filed on 20.08.2024 before this

¶18

Court almost after a period of two years five months. On account of certain objections being raised by the Registry, the case had been

¶19

returned. Resultantly, miscellaneous application being CMP

¶20

No. 5593 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay in

¶21

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

¶22

2025:HHC:8838

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

re-filing the Writ petition after removing the objections. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the application for condonation of delay being CMP No. 5593 of 2025 is allowed.

¶25

A perusal of the impugned order would go on to show that it is a case of consent given before the matter was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2083 of 2007. Therefore on that count also, no occasion arises to consider the matter on merits.

¶26

In our considered opinion, the case is already covered by the principles 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, relevant portion whereof reads as under:

¶27

“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

¶28

2025:HHC:8838

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.”

¶33