Sr. No. 45 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 2458/2024 Union of India and others …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI V/s Ex. NK Amrik Singh …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 16.07.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 07.01.2019, passed by the Hon’ble Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu, in OA No. 702/2018 titled “Ex NK Amrik Singh v. Union of India and others”. 2. The respondent was enrolled in the Army on 29.08.1988 and was discharged after completion of 22 years and 02 days of service on 31.08.2010. At the time of discharge, the respondent was placed in a low medical category and his disability was assessed at 20%, for which he was granted disability pension at the rate of 20%. 3. The respondent filed OA No. 702/2018 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Srinagar Bench at Jammu, seeking War Injury element of disability pension as 50% for life w.e.f. 01.09.2010 along with interest. This OA was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.01.2019. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Page 2 of 3 4. Before entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ court has to take note of the fact whether this delay and laches is one of the factors to be considered while exercise of discretionary powers. The negligence or omission on the part of the litigant to assert his right may result in the court refusing to exercise its extraordinary powers. 5. It is well settled that parties must pursue their rights diligently and not sleep over them. If they choose not to pursue their rights for a long time, the court may decline to interfere in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan and another, AIR 2006 SC 1581, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 6, has held as under: - 6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party…. 7. Similar view has also been expressed in Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others, (2007) 9 SCC 274, in which, it has been held that in case of belated approach, writ petition is to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind while exercising discretionary relief. In case of omission or negligence, the High Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary powers. 8. There is an inordinate delay of seven years in filing this petition, for which, there is no explanation, much less a plausible explanation, the delay. There is an inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such, the same cannot be entertained. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of law, no case for warranting interference is made out. 10. This petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. . (SHAHZAD AZEEM) (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE Jammu: 16.07.2025 Vishal Khajuria