The court emphasizes the importance of timely filing of petitions and the need for valid and supported claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging order No. JKI/177/2017 dated 18.10.2017 passed by respondent No.2 whereby representations of the petitioner dated 17.03.2017 and 02.01.2017, upon their consideration in terms of order dated 25.08.2017 passed by this Court in SWP No. 2113/2017, have been rejected.

2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sentry/Field Assistant vide appointment order No. RTO/Estt./96/5448-51 dated 19.10.1974 in Government Resin and Turpentine Factory Fatehpur, District Rajouri. According to the petitioner on 01.01.2002 an encounter took place between the militants and Special Operations Group of the police headed by Dy.S.P Operations Rajouri and in the said encounter two militants were killed. In this regard, FIR No. 15/2002 for offences under Sections 7/27 E.A.Act, 307/120-B, 124-A and 427 RPC was registered with Police Station, Rajouri. It has been submitted that it is the petitioner who had furnished the information with regard to presence of the militants to the police as a result of which, after the incident, he started receiving life threats from the militants. It has been further submitted that due to these life threats the petitioner had to shift to Jammu City where he stayed for several months and thereafter he left the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is being submitted that the petitioner because of these conditions got mentally disturbed and after spending about 10 years outside the State, he came back to his native place. It has been submitted by the petitioner that upon coming back to his native place, he came to know that the Resin factory in which he was employed has been closed down and the employees of the factory have been given the benefit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme in terms of Cabinet Decision No. 119/2010 dated 11.06.2010 prusuant whereto Government order No. 218-F of 2007 dated 16.07.2007 has been issued.

3. It has been pleaded that a number of writ petitions came to be filed by the aggrieved persons and in compliance to the directions passed by this Court another Cabinet Decision bearing No. 189/2016/2010 dated 26.08.2010 was taken and in light of the said Cabinet Decision, Government Order No. 237-F of 2010 dated 30.08.2010 was issued by the Finance Department with regard to Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the employees of the Public Sector Undertakings. It is case of the petitioner that he is also entitled to the benefits under the aforesaid Scheme.

4. According to the petitioner when he came back to resume his duties he came to know that his services have been terminated by respondent No.3 in terms of order No. RFR/TEG/2004-05 dated 07.07.2004. It has been pleaded that the aforesaid termination order was issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without adhering to the principles of natural justice.

5. It has been submitted that in reply to the RTI query of the petitioner, the respondents informed him that after the Resin factory was closed the record and other assets were shifted to MRTF, Jammu, as such, the record pertaining to the petitioner is not available with them and the same is available with the corporate office. However, the petitioner was provided a copy of his service book which shows that his services have been terminated on 07.07.2004.

6. The petitioner is stated to have made representations dated 17.03.2015 and 02.01.2017 before the respondents asking for retiral benefits but when no decision was taken by the respondents he filed writ petition bearing SWP No. 2113/2017. Vide order dated 25.08.2017 passed by this Court in the said writ petition, a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner within a period of two months. Pursuant to these directions, the impugned order dated 18.10.2017 came to be issued by the respondent No.2 whereby the representations of the petitioner have been rejected.

7. The petitioner has challe