Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Union’s Plea Against AFT Order, Citing Inaction and Lack of Justifiable Cause for Delay
Kiran Raj
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed four writ petitions filed by the Union of India challenging the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Circuit Bench at Shimla. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma, held that the petitions were barred by delay and laches, observing that the Union of India had failed to pursue its legal remedies within a reasonable period.
The case involved multiple petitions concerning pension claims. The Tribunal had granted relief to the respondents, including Pawna Devi and three retired members of the Armed Forces, restricting the arrears of pension to three years prior to the filing of their applications. The court noted that the Union of India delayed filing the present petitions by over a year, rendering them untenable.
The matter originated from four separate decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal in 2022. The Tribunal had granted relief to the respondents on different dates, including May 20, August 24, and November 4, 2022. The Union of India, however, only moved to file the writ petitions in January and February 2025, well beyond what the court deemed an acceptable timeframe.
The respondents had sought the grant of family and service pensions. The Tribunal’s orders, now under challenge, had directed the authorities to release the benefits within three months of receiving the certified copy of the decision. Failure to comply would have resulted in the arrears accruing interest at 8% per annum. The petitioners contended that the delay was justified due to legal opinions sought and developments in a separate Supreme Court matter, Civil Appeal No. 447 of 2023, Union of India v. Parashotam Dass. The apex court, in that case, had reaffirmed that the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to review Tribunal orders was not restricted. The government argued that based on legal advice received on September 18, 2023, and a subsequent decision taken on October 18, 2023, it had the right to challenge the orders before the High Court.
Also Read: Supreme Court Raises Concerns About Senior Advocate Designation Process, Refers Issue to CJI
The court, however, found that the Union of India had failed to exercise its legal remedies in a timely manner. It noted that under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, an appeal against the Tribunal’s order had to be filed before the Supreme Court within 90 days. The petitioners had not availed this statutory remedy within the prescribed period. The court recorded: "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."
The court further observed that the justification provided for the delay was insufficient. It stated that while the decision in Parashotam Dass provided clarity on the maintainability of writ petitions, it did not absolve the Union of India from explaining the delay in filing its petitions. The bench recorded: "Only on account of the fact that judgment has been passed in the case of Parashotam Dass and opinion has been given by learned Attorney General to a set of cases, the sufficient cause is sought to be made out."
The court noted that the conduct of the Union of India reflected deliberate inaction and a lack of bona fides. The court held that constitutional remedies could not be used to override procedural delays without reasonable cause. It stated: "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."
Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the court reiterated the principle that the government does not enjoy an indefinite period to challenge judicial orders. It relied on P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271, which held that delay in service matters could bar judicial relief. Similarly, it cited Chief Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, in which the Supreme Court held that government entities could not seek leniency for delays resulting from bureaucratic inefficiency. The bench stated: "Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
The court further noted that the Tribunal had already factored in reasonable relief by limiting the arrears of pension to three years before the date of application. The delay by the Union of India in challenging these orders, according to the court, only compounded the issue. It cited B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SCC 693, which held that legal remedies should not remain open indefinitely, as this would lead to uncertainty and prolonged litigation.
The court dismissed all four writ petitions, stating: "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." The court also rejected the government’s reliance on legal opinions obtained in 2023, stating that no satisfactory explanation was provided for the inaction in the intervening period.
Consequently, the petitions were dismissed along with all pending miscellaneous applications.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Pawna Devi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:3997
Case Numbers: CWP Nos. 2522, 2535, 2338, and 2545 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Justice Ranjan Sharma
[Read/Download order]
