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.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

CMP(M) No.227 of 2025

Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Therefore, the delay of 407 days in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs of respondent No.1, is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

CMP(M) No.226 of 2025

2. The present application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to bring on record legal heirs of deceased-respondent [Soman Devi].

3. No reply is intended to be filed to the present application.

4. Keeping in view the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and legal heirs of deceased- respondent [Soman Devi] are ordered to be substituted as respondents No.I to VII as mentioned in Para 1 of the application.

5. Amended Memo of Parties is taken on record.

The application stands disposed of.

CWP No.767 of 2024

6. Challenge has been laid to the order dated 17.05.2022, passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Bench, Circuit Bench at Shimla, in O.A. No.1298 of 2020, titled as Soman Devi versus Union of India and Others. The writ petition has been filed on 15.01.2024, after the period of more than one and half years. The perusal of the impugned order would go on to show that it is a consent order and matter was covered by the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.

7. The matter is covered by a judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.2522 of 2025, titled as Union of India & Others versus Pawna Devi and connected matters, decided on 25.02.2025, whereby we dismissed the petitions on the ground of delay and laches, wherein it was observed as under:-

“10. As noticed, the Tribunal had passed various orders way back in May, August & November, 2022 and for a period ranging to1 year to 1½ years, the Union of India opted not to challenge the said orders.

11. In service matters, the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that the orders passed by the authorities regarding seniority etc. be challenged within a reasonable time and reference can be made in the judgment of P.S. Sadasivcaswamyv. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271, whereby the right has been curtailed of the litigants to challenge the administrative orders or claim the right to seniority by filing the writ petitions.

12. The said principle can be kept in mind while deciding the present cases also. The concept of liberal approach has to be kept in mind, but the concept of reasonableness and a total unfettered free play cannot be permitted and there is a distinction between inordinate delay and delay of short duration. The fundamental principle before the Court is to weigh the balance of justice in respect of both parties and inaction of a party cannot be given the go-by in the name of a liberal approach and the lack of bonafide’s which is a relevant factor.

13. In State of Nagaland versus Lipok AO and others (2005) 3 SCR 108, certain amount of latitude was held permissible to the officers/officials of the Government by applying the principles of ‘a little play at a joints’ and resultantly the delay of 57 days which had occurred in filing the application for leave to appeal in view of the provisions under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been allowed. It was, however, held that the State has impersonal machinery which works through its officers or servants to grant the said relief keeping in view the nominal delay.

14. Similar principles have been laid down in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. and another versus K. Thangappan and another(2006) 4 SCC 322. It was held that the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as it will cause prejudice to the opposite party. Accordingly it was held that the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its