Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may be declined for unjustified delay and laches in challenging Tribunal orders.

The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on September 3, 1965, for a term of 9 years regular service and 6 years reserve liability.

Upon completing 9 years and 28 days of service, he did not opt for an extension to 15 years and was discharged on September 30, 1974.

He was granted service and death-cum-retirement gratuity but denied a pension.

He approached the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), which, via an order dated December 5, 2024, directed the Petitioners to grant him "Special Pension" effective from three years prior to the filing of the application.

The Union of India challenged this order before the Delhi High Court on March 17, 2026, after a delay of approximately 15 months.

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution given the prolonged and unexplained delay in filing.

2. Whether the Respondent is entitled to Special Pension under Regulation 136(b) and Section 144 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961.

The court primarily applied the principles of equity concerning "delay and laches" in the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the precedent T.S. Das v. Union of India (2017) 4 SCC 218, which interpreted Regulation 92(2) of the Navy (Pension) Regulations (analogous to Regulation 136(b) of the Air Force Regulations) regarding the grant of Special Pension to personnel with less than 15 years of service.

The Court focused on the procedural conduct of the Petitioners rather than the merits of the pension claim. It observed that the impugned order was passed on December 5, 2024, yet the Petitioners waited until March 17, 2026, to file the writ petition.

The Court noted that the Petitioners failed to provide any "satisfactory explanation" or justification for the delay of nearly one and a half years.

While acknowledging that no rigid limitation period applies to writ petitions, the Court reasoned that lack of diligence and failure to act on judicial directions should not be countenanced.

Consequently, the Court held that the Petitioners' conduct did not warrant the exercise of equitable jurisdiction.

The High Court did not adjudicate upon the merits of the case or the applicability of Regulation 144 of the Pension Regulations for the Air Force, 1961, leaving that specific legal question "expressly open" for future cases.

All pending applications were disposed of.