Union of India and Anr. Vs Madan Lal

the order dated 20.04.2023, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Bench (Circuit Bench at Shimla) (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in T.A. No.1308 of 2010, titled as Union of India and Others versus Madan Lal by the Union of India in its usual belated stage filed on 04.04.2025, after a period of two years.

¶12

2. The first inaction on behalf of the Union of

¶13

India was that after the order passed by the Tribunal

¶14

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

¶15

2025:HHC:17896

¶16

2 -

¶17

initially on 20.04.2023, the Union of India chose to sleep over the matter and after a period of almost one year, filed M.A. Nos.618 and 619 of 2024 which was clear from

¶18

the order passed on 03.04.2024, by the Tribunal, whereby the application, seeking leave to appeal, along with the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Thereafter, for another period of almost exactly one year, Union of India again did not opt to file the present writ petition. The Tribunal, on merit, as such, vide earlier order had upheld the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Pathankot, wherein the discharge from service of the Ex-serviceman on 18.03.2002 was declared as illegal, null and void, and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff (respondent herein).

¶19

3. Initially the appeal had been filed before the learned District Judge Gurdaspur and the said appeal had been transferred by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur to the Tribunal. Resultantly the said order has been upheld by holding that voluntary discharge has been engineered and fabricated to get rid of the Exserviceman.

¶20

2025:HHC:17896

¶21

3 -

¶22

4. The reason for delay which has been explained in the writ petition is that on the dismissal of leave to appeal on 3.4.2024, the directions were given to file writ petition which was received from Records of Jammu & Kashmir Rifles on 06.08.2024 ( Annexure P-3) , which was done on the basis of advise dated 16.07.2024 of the Director General Territorial Army. The explanation given is that some time was taken for collecting papers, briefing and drafting the writ petition and the delay is not intentional.

¶23

5. We are not convinced with the aforesaid explanation, as sufficient cause has not been shown for the period of more than eight months as the writ petition was only filed on 04.04.2025. Thereafter also the time was consumed by the Union of India to file the writ petition. Even prior to 06.08.2024, more than three months were again consumed before decision was taken to file the writ petition, which would go on to show that there was inaction on the part of Union of India in filing the writ petition at a belated stage which is nothing but an attempt to revive the dead cause.

¶24

6. In such circumstances, we are of the

¶25

2025:HHC:17896

¶26

4 -

¶27

considered opinion that in similar circumstances, we have already dismissed a bunch of cases, the lead case of which was CWP No.2522 of 2025 , titled as Union of India & Ors. Versus Pawna Devi , on 25.02.2025 by noting that a reasonable period of delay can only be condoned by this Court not beyond a period of one year and no effort was made by the Union of India to challenge the orders as such passed by the Tribunal within the said period. The relevant paragraphs read as under:

¶28

“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.

¶29

5. The stock reason given for delay is that in Civil Appeal No.447 of 2023 titled as Union of India & Ors. Versus 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.

¶30

6. It is also not disputed that prior to the order passed

¶31

2025:HHC:17896

¶32

5 -

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

10 to 24 xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶38

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. In spite 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.

¶39

26. Therefore, the period prior to 18.10.2023 as such

¶40

2025:HHC:17896

¶41

6 -

¶42

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.

¶43

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.”

¶44

7. Resultantly, the present writ petition is

¶45

dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶46

disposed of.

¶47

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶48

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶49

June, 03 2025 [Himani/Chiranjeev]

Union of India and Anr. v. Madan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Anr. v. Madan Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hppcl and Others Vs Raj Kumari and Others

State of Hp and Anr. Vs Dev Raj

Alventa Pharma Ltd. Vs Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh

Hardev Singh and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Shrishti Pal Vasudeva and Anr. Vs Narsingh Dutt and Ors.

Jodh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.