IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 25.08.2025 GURBHEJ SINGH . .Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Senior Panel Counsel-UOI with Mr. Ishank Bansal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 & 2.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No. 3-Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal), by which, the Original Application No. 3204 of 2017 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay, which is causing prejudice to the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though there is a delay of 8072 days in approaching the Tribunal, but the same should be considered with sympathy as the petitioner met with an accident on 30.10.1996, which led to further admission in hospital and as he was wrongly Court Martial and imposed the punishment of imprisonment as well as dismissal from service vide order dated 05.09.1995, hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay of 8072 days in approaching the Tribunal should have been condoned rather than dismissing the said application filed by the petitioner.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

4. It may be noticed that the aggrieved person has to be more vigilant about his right and should approach the authorities concerned as and when he/she feels aggrieved rather than delaying the said issue.

5. In case, the circumstances are beyond the control of a person, the delay can be condoned but where despite every knowledge, the employee does not raises any grievance for a long stretch of time then the Courts should be reluctant to interfere in such situation.

6. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner was dismissed from service after a Summary Court Martial on 05.09.1995. The Summary Court Martial imprisoned the petitioner for a period of three months and also dismissed him from service. After completing the sentence, no action was taken by the petitioner for a period of 16 years.

7. An Original Application No. 1301 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal dated 05.09.1995. The said Original Application No. 1301 of 2011 was also withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to file a fresh one and for another period of six years, no such action was ever taken by the petitioner and ultimately, an Original Application No. 3204 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner.

8. Keeping in view the fact that after a period of 22 years, the original application No. 3204 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal dated 05.09.1995 and the said application has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay of 8072 days as no justifiable reason has been shown to the Tribunal to condone the said delay so as to hear the original Application No. 3204 of 2017 on merit.

9. As per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1852 of 1989 with Civil Appeal No. 4772 of 1989 titled as ‘State of Punjab and others vs. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar, decided on 21.08.1991, that every order passed in case, causes prejudice, has to be challenged within a period of three years.

The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under:-

“ 4. First of all, to say that the suit is not governed by the law of Limitation runs afoul of our Limitation Act. The statute of limitation was intended to provide a time limit for all suits conceivable. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that a suit, appeal or application instituted after the prescribed "period of limitation" must subject to the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 be dismiss