The Union of India cannot challenge orders after significant delays, as parties develop vested rights, and such delays amount to gross negligence.

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 be noticed that we have already dealt with the issue of delay in another bunch of cases which we have consistently followed thereafter and the principle laid down in CWP No.2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. Versus Pawna Devi along with connected matters, decided on 25.02.2025, reads as under :-

“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.

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.

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

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.

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.

9. As per averments made in the writ petitions itself, the decision to file the writ petition