Union of India and Ors v. Om Prakash

ORDER

17.09.2025

Sanjeev Kumar J

¶1Impugned in this petition, filed by the Union of India under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an order and judgment dated

25.03.2019 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Srinagar at Jammu ["the Tribunal"] in OA No. 110 of 2019 titled "Om Prakash Vs. Union of India & Ors." to the extent it does not restrict the payment of arrears to three years immediately preceding the filing of OA (supra).

¶2The 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.

¶3Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this petition is hit by delay and laches as the petitioners Serial No. 14

2 WP(C) No. 1843/2025

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.

¶4Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is hit by delay and laches.

¶5Indisputably, the judgment in OA No. 110 of 2019, which is impugned in this petition, was pronounced on 25.03.2019 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.

¶6The 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 16.11.2011. 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.

¶7We have gone through the memorandum of writ petition and the annexures appended thereto and do not find any good explanation

3 WP(C) No. 1843/2025

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.

¶8For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sanjay Parihar) (Sanjeev Kumar)

Judge

Judge

Jammu

17.09.2025 Vishal Sharma

Whether the order is reportable:

Whether the order is speaking:

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 1843/2025 UOI & Ors. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, CGSC vs Om Prakash .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE