HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 240/2025 in SWP No. 2493/2016 CM No. 4284/2025 Dilshada Begum …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. T.M. Khan, Advocate. Vs. Shri Shailendra Kumar and ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 22.07.2025 1. The petitioner herein has filed a time barred contempt petition being CCP(S) No. 240/2025 accompanied with the instant application being CM No. 4284/2025, seeking condonation of delay in maintaining the said contempt petition. 2. It is being stated in the application that the service writ petition No. 2493/2016 filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of by this Court on 24.11.2016, whereupon the said order of disposal was served upon the respondents in furtherance whereof, inter-se Communications came to be addressed by the respondent 2/contemnor to respondent/contemnor 1 for further necessary instructions, which letter was followed by another letter addressed by the respondent 1 to respondent 2 herein on 18.04.2018, making a request therein for furnishing detailed record of the deceased (the husband of the petitioner herein), who was working as a Seasonal Labour with the respondents and on account of his death, the petitioner herein has sought compassionate appointment and that despite Sr. No. 01 2 CCP(S) No. 240/2025 in SWP No. 2493/2016 the addressing of the aforesaid letter dated 18.04.2018, the respondents/contemnors did not take any further action, even though representations in this regard were submitted by the petitioner on 20.01.2020 and 12.08.2024 to respondents and on account of the failure of the respondents/contemnors in the matter, delay got caused in filing the instant contempt petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. Perusal of the record, admittedly, would suggest that the SWP (supra) came to be filed by the petitioner, claiming therein that her husband died in harness while working as Daily Wager and had a such sought her appointment on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 of 1994 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of on 24.11.2016 by this Court by directing the respondents to accord consideration to the claim/representations of the petitioner in the light of SRO 43 of 1994 and the judgments rendered from time to time and take appropriate decision in the matter, preferably within six months’ time after the petitioner produces a copy of the order alongwith a fresh representation before the respondent 4. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the respondent 2 herein in the year 2018 subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid order by the Court, took up the matter with the respondent 1 herein in terms of letter dated 05.02.2018, requesting for necessary action in the matter, whereafter the respondent 1 in terms of letter dated 18.04.2018 had sought the detailed record of the deceased alongwith the comments in the matter. However, the petitioner seems to have not pursued the case before the respondents and slept over the matter and claims to have submitted a representation on 20.01.2020 and thereafter on 12.08.2024 without providing therein the said representations as to what prevented the petitioner from agitating 3 CCP(S) No. 240/2025 in SWP No. 2493/2016 the matter thereafter till 20.01.2020 and thereafter on 12.08.2024 when the petitioner claims to have submitted representations before the respondent 3. 5. The instant contempt petition, under these circumstances, prima-facie, has been filed without providing a sufficient cause or reason either in the contempt petition or in the instant application thereof. 6. Here a reference to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be relevant and germane, which for the facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:- “20. Limitation for actions for contempt.—No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.” A further reference to the judgment of the Apex Court passed in case titled as, “U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Jawant Singh reported in 2016 (11) SCC 464” would also be relevant herein, wherein it has been laid down that when a person is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, his petition cannot be heard after a couple of years. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, inasmuch as, the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application in hand is found to be without any merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed alongwith accompanying contempt petition. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 22.07.2025 Ram Krishan Ram Krishan 2025.05.11 14:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document