The Union of India cannot challenge tribunal orders after significant delay without valid justification, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Ranjan Sharma, J.

1. This order will dispose of four Writ Petitions filed by Union of India, where the challenge has been made to the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Chandigarh, Regional Circuit Bench at Shimla.

2. The relief has been granted to the petitioners before the Tribunal way back on 20.05.2022 in the first case, the subject matters of challenge in CWP No. 2535 of 2025. Similarly, a challenge in CWP No. 2338 of 2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. vs. Ex. Naik Suresh Kumar, the Tribunal decided the matter on 24.08.2022. In CWP No. 2522 of 2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. vs. Pawna Devi, the Armed Forces Tribunal decided on 04.11.2022, is also similar to the decision passed in November, 2022 challenged in CWP No. 2545 of 2025 titled as Union of India & Ors. vs. Ex. Sep Rewal Singh.

3. The writ petitions by the Union of India have been filed in January and February 2025. We are not deciding the issue on merits in these set of cases. We are primarily concerned with the issue of delay in filing these petitions. We would take the facts from Union of India while taking up case of Pawna Devi in CWP No.2522 of 2025 to notice that the claim is for grant of ordinary family pension and the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 04.11.2022, while granting the benefit had restricted the arrears to three years prior to the filing of the application which is 28.01.2019. The amounts were to be released within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy by the Learned Senior Panel Counsel, failing which it was to carry interest @ 8% from the date of the order till realization of the entire amount.

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. vs. 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