HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.1020/2025 MANZOOR AHMAD PARRAY ... PETITIONER(S) Through: - Mr. Ateeb Kanth, Advocate. Vs. UT OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S) Through: - CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (ORAL) 06.05.2025 1) The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has sought a direction upon the respondents to allow him to resume his duties as Special Police Officer (SPO) in J&K Police in terms of his engagement order No.CS/SPO-Eng/2016/ 16646-57 dated 16.12.2016. 2) According to the petitioner, he was temporarily engaged as an SPO in the J&K Police by SSP, Baramulla, in terms of Order No.996/2016 dated 10.12.2016. It has been submitted that the petitioner joined his place of posting and worked in the Police Department with full zeal and performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superior officers but he was disengaged by the respondents without following due process of law on the ground that he had remained absent from duty. Sr. No.83 Suppl List P a g e | 2 It has been submitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before terminating his service. 3) According to the petitioner, he had approached DIG North, Kashmir, in the year 2019, for his reinstatement but he was not given any response. It has been further submitted that in the year 2020 as also in the year 2022, the petitioner continuously approached DIG North, Kashmir, as also PHQ, Srinagar but he was not given any hearing. A representation was moved by the petitioner before the Director General of Police on 07.05.2024, a copy whereof has been placed on record, but no action has been taken by the respondents. It has been submitted that the petitioner has served the respondent Police Department from the year 2016 till the end of year 2018 and just because of absence from duty, he was disengaged, that too without following due process of law. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I have also gone through the material on record. 5) It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had worked with the respondent Police Department upto ending 2018 only, whereafter his services were disengaged on account of unauthorized absence. The petitioner has approached this Court more than six years after his disengagement. The explanation given by the petitioner for belated resort to the writ jurisdiction of this Court is that he P a g e | 3 had made representation with DIG North, Kashmir, in the year 2019 and that in the year 2020 and 2022, he had personally approached the office of DIG North and PHQ, Srinagar. Lastly, he made a representation before the respondents in May 2024. The question arises as to whether mere making of representations without any response from the authorities would be a sufficient ground for condoning the delay in approaching this Court after more than six years. 6) The petitioner, as is clear from the assertions made in the writ petition, has slept over his rights, if at all the same were available to him, for more than six years and then taken a belated resort to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Merely because the petitioner had made representations before the respondents without there being any consideration to the said representations by the respondents cannot be a ground to condone the delay in filing the writ petition. The petitioner has made mere assertions in the writ petition in this regard without placing on record even a single representation which he has, purportedly, made after his disengagement in the year 2018 uptill May, 2024. By sleeping over the matter for all these years, the petitioner has acquiesced in the action of the respondents whereby they have disengaged his services. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner had made continuous representations before the respondents during all these years P a g e | 4 but without there being any consideration and response to the said representations from the respondents, the stale claim of the petitioner would not get revived. 7) The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary in nature and it cannot be exercised in favour of a litigant who has been negligent in pursuing his remedies. The petitioner, as already stated, has slept over his rights and has taken a belated resort to writ jurisdiction of this Court, which is bound to fail on account of delay and laches. 8) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 06.05.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 07.05.2025 03:05