Ex Cadet Jai Swarup Wal v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 22 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11839-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
W.P.(C) 19430/2025
2025:DHC:11839-DB
constitutional other

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court allowed withdrawal of a writ petition filed after nearly 60 years delay without explanation, permitting reinstitution with justification for the delay.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 19430/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 19430/2025
EX CADET JAI SWARUP WAL .....Petitioner
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)
JUDGMENT

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 19430/2025 & CM APPL. 81035/2025 (Directions) W.P.(C) 19430/2025

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 Singh[1], 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