Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J., RANJAN SHARMA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Renu Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.11.2022, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh. The petition has been filed on 29.03.2025, after a period of more than two years. The Tribunal has allowed the application of the widow of deceased Soldier, whereby she was aggrieved against the stoppage of family pension on account of the fact that she had re-married and solemnized the marriage with the real brother of deceased husband, Anil Kumar. The appellant-Union of India continued the family pension in favour of her son who had been born to her from loins of deceased.
2. Resultantly, the Tribunal while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal in Smt. Saroj Devi versus Union of India & Others 2010 SCC online AFT 41 granted the relief as such by noting that the widow was only 26 years old while coming to the conclusion that pension was welfare measure.
3. Apparently, Union of India chosen not to file the writ petition and it has been filed at a belated stage with the usual excuse that there was an opinion dated 18.09.2023, from the learned Attorney General. It is to
The Union of India cannot challenge orders after significant delays, as parties develop vested rights, and such delays amount to gross negligence.
The principle of delay and laches applies to dismiss a writ petition filed after an unreasonable delay, emphasizing the need for timely legal action.
The Union of India cannot challenge tribunal orders after significant delay without valid justification, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.
The court emphasized that the law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including the government, and failure to act within a reasonable time results in dismissal of claims.
Inordinate delay of 17 years in filing a writ petition can preclude relief under Article 226, emphasizing the principle that delay defeats equity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary, and should not....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
