IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5092 of 2001 MD.IDRIS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6. 30.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims that he became entitled for supertime selection grade with effect from 1.3.1989. It is a fact that during his service tenure he did not pursue any legal remedy for the same and superannuated on 30.6.1996. After he superannuated and time was at leisure for him, he came to this Court with his belated claim in CWJC No. 2783 of 1999. On 4.5.2000 this Court permitted him to represent before the authority. The representation has now been rejected by orders dated 20.7.2000 and 20.2.2001. He questions the same on the premise that it was granted to certain others on 1.7.1995. Learned counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of the Court that alleged grant of benefit to others noticed in CWJC No. 2783 of 1999, but no positive relief was granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits from an order dated 18.10.2000 at Annexure-7 that instructions have been issued that those who are entitled to supertime selection grade and have not been granted the same, the benefit should be made available. The submission is that this creates a fresh cause of action in the petitioner. This Court finds it difficult to accept the submission 2 that the communication dated 18.10.2000 was creating any fresh cause of action or a fresh right by a fresh administrative order in the petitioner. It is an argument in desperation. It does nothing more but reiterate what the petitioner claims due to him since 1989. The jurisdiction of the Writ Court is discretionary. One of the principles guiding exercise of this discretion evolved by the Court‟s has been undue delay in seeking relief. Coming to the facts of this case, the claim is a cause of action of 1.3.1989 not agitated legally till superannuation on 30.6.1996. Belatedly, after retirement, three years later in 1999 a writ petition is filed. The Court simply observed that the representation be decided. The authority in deference to the observation of the Court has disposed the representation. This order of the Respondents does not create any fresh cause of action in the petitioner neither does it obliterate the earlier inordinate delay on his part in not pursuing a legal remedy for his claims originating as far back as on 1.3.1989. The modus operandi indulged by the petitioner in raking up a belated and stale claim by filing a belated representation, coming to this Court, obtaining orders for disposal of the representation have all been considered adequately by the Supreme Court in (2008) 10 SCC 115 (C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining & anr.) described as „modus of representation‟. It has been observed in paragraph 8 of the same that the petitioner, aware of the delay on his part and the risk in 3 challenging it directly before the Court with a possible rejection on grounds of delay and laches, chooses to file a representation and then comes to the court seeking liberty for a direction for disposal of the representation. The Courts normally pass an innocuous order for disposal of the representation. The authorities go under the fear that non-disposal of the representation may invite wrath of the court. The Supreme Court has cautioned on the issue on such directions given by the Court that, “Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to “consider”. If the representation was disposed, the employee may get the relief only because of the observation of the Court. But, if it is rejected after consideration, the petitioner then tries to make out a fresh cause of action. The Court routinely entertains the writ application. To quote the words of the Supreme Court “A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such application/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.” The conclusion of the Apex Court has then been noticed in paragraph 11 of the judgment as follows : “ When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the 4 impression that failure to do so may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of “acknowledgement of a jural relationship” to give rise to a fresh cause of action. “ For reasons of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ application raising a belated and stale claim. The application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)