Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Uoi And Ors vs Pritam Singh on 3 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No. 08
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 1704/2024
UOI and Ors. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Rohan Nanda, CGSC
vs
Pritam Singh ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Prabhat Sangotra, Advocate vice
Mr. P.L. Sharma, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER(ORAL)
03.09.2025 Sanjeev Kumar J WP(C) No. 1704/2024
1. Impugned in this petition, filed by the Union of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order and judgment dated 24.10.2018 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in OA No. 525/2018 titled "9094374A Ex. Naik Pritam Singh vs. UOI and Ors." to the extent it does not restrict the payment of arrears to three years immediately preceding the filing of OA (supra).
2. The impugned judgment is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal has not appreciated the fact that the respondent had approached the Tribunal after about two decades of the accrual of cause of action and, therefore, could not have been held entitled to the arrears for the entire period.
2 WP(C) No. 1704/2024
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this petition is hit by delay and laches as the petitioners have approached this Court after six years after the passing of the judgment impugned. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 15.07.2025 passed in WP (C) No. 1804/2025, in which, under a similar set of circumstances, this Court has declined to interfere with the judgment passed in the OA on the ground of inordinate delay and laches.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material the judgment impugned, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is hit by delay and laches.
5. Indisputably, the judgment in OA No. 525 of 2018, which is impugned in this petition was pronounced on 24.10.2018 and the same unequivocally held the respondent entitled to arrears, without imposing any restriction of time, to be paid by the petitioners, within a period of four weeks.
6. The judgment made it abundantly clear that the benefit of rounding off with the benefit of arrears shall be available to the respondent with effect from 01.02.2008. The judgment was all along in the notice of the petitioners. The execution petition filed by the respondent before the Tribunal in the year 2019 is being contested by the petitioners and, therefore, they cannot plead ignorance of the judgment or its import on any ground whatsoever. 3 WP(C) No. 1704/2024
7. We have gone through the memorandum of writ petition and the annexures appended thereto and do not find any good explanation coming forth to explain the delay of more than six years in approaching this Court. Relying upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court (supra), we are of the considered view that this petition, too, is hit by inordinate delay and laches and, therefore, cannot be entertained.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and the same, is accordingly, dismissed.
(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
Jammu
03.09.2025
Manik
Whether this order speaking: yes/no
Whether this order is reportable: yes/no