Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:123686 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10459 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd Vikkan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Adarsh Bhushan,C.S.C.,Suyash Agarwal Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Adarsh Bhushan as well as Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, Advocates for respondents. 2. Petitioner is guilty of his own conduct. Admittedly he remained absent between 2010 to 2017, i.e., for a long period of seven years, purportedly on ground that he was unwell. There is nothing on record that during said period petitioner has approached the concerned respondent for grant of leave. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has approached in the year 2017 to rejoin his services and he was asked to appear before a Medical Board. Accordingly, he appeared before Medical Board and he was declared fit to join his services by Medical Board’s report dated 31.05.2017. However, there is no other document that on basis of said report, petitioner has tried to rejoin or filed any representation before concerned respondent. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner, by referring para 12 of writ petition, submits that petitioner has engaged one, Sri Surendra Prasad Sharma, Advocate in the year 2020 and his photographs were also clicked at Photo Identification Center, however, admittedly no writ petition was filed. Petitioner has not taken any action against said Advocate and even he has not made party in this writ petition. Now petitioner has filed present writ petition through present Advocate to agitate his claim, which was to be agitated 8 years ago. 5. Learned counsel for respondents submit that petitioner has never approached concerned respondent with medical report or certificate. He has not filed any application and he remained absent from 2010 till today, i.e., for more than 15 years, though admittedly no disciplinary proceeding was initiate. 6. As observed above, petitioner is guilty of his own conduct. He remained lethargic to agitate his right, if any. He has not submitted any application for grant of leave from 2010 to 2017 when he admittedly remained absent. Petitioner has also not taken any advantage of the report of Medical Board. A vague averment that his earlier Advocate has not filed writ petition, will not condone delay since petitioner has not taken any action against said Advocate. The Court takes note of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Nitin Mahadeo Jawale and others vs. Bhaskar Mutke, 2024 INSC 902 and paras 6 and 7 thereof being relevant are reproduced hereinafter: “6. We have noticed over a period of time the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate. Not only this, we have come across cases where the concerned advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s) saying that he was unable to attend the proceedings due to some personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating the litigant to get the delay condoned. 7. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance.” 7. Therefore, at this belated stage claim of petitioner cannot be considered. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad