✦ Delhi High Court

EX CADET JAI SWARUP WAL v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

C HARI SHANKAR

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

The application stands disposed of

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. We are conscious of the fact that, in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh1, the Supreme Court has held that, in cases of pension, delay cannot be an impediment of grant of relief. However, in the present case, the delay is of more than…
  • Para 77. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. C. HARI SHANKAR, J OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J DECEMBER 22, 2025/pa Signature Not Verified 1 2008 (8) SCC 648 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:23.12.2025 18:35:23

Judgment

Through: Ms. Shruti Rawat, Mr. Prashant Negi and Mr. Mohd Afjal Khan, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, CGSC with Mr. Vikrant Goel, Advocate for R-1 to 4. Ms. Anjali Vohra, Advocate for R-5. Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Government Pleader with Ms. Avantika Pandey, Ms. Vanshika Arora and Mr. Ayush, Advocates. Major Anish Muralidhar for the Army. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % ORDER (ORAL) 22.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. CM APPL. 81036/2025 (Exemption)

Operative part

2.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 19430/2025 & CM APPL. 81035/2025 (Directions) Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:23.12.2025 18:35:23

3.

Dr. Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, learned CGSC who appears for the Union of India, submits that this writ petition is vitiated by inordinate delay and latches, inasmuch as the petitioner was boarded out from service in 1967 and has preferred this writ petition in 2025.

4.

We are conscious of the fact that, in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh1, the Supreme Court has held that, in cases of pension, delay cannot be an impediment of grant of relief. However, in the present case, the delay is of more than half a century, in fact, almost of over 60 years. There is not a whisper of an explanation in the entire writ petition, for the said delay.

5.

We have to be conscious of the fact that the respondents may also not be having, with them, at this distance of time, the relevant record, so as to contest the matter.

6.

Nonetheless, for the present, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition and reinstitute the petition, if so advised, also explaining why it took almost 60 years for the petitioner to approach this Court.

7.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. C. HARI SHANKAR, J OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J DECEMBER 22, 2025/pa Signature Not Verified 1 2008 (8) SCC 648 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:23.12.2025 18:35:23

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Delhi High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments