IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18090 of 2009 1. RAJ KISHORE PRASAD S/O LATE BHAGWAT PRASAD R/O MOH B.P.S.BHAWAN,PURANI GUDARI ROAD, P.O.RAMNA, P.S.TOWN, MUZAFFARPUR,DISTT-MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE SECRETARY,LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY,LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARMENT GOVERNEMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR (EMPLOYMENT), DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT &TRAINING NEW SECREARIAT, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EMPLOYMENT), LABOUR EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT SUB EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 3/ 05/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Certain juniors to the petitioner were granted promotion in 1981 and 1989. Another person like the petitioner aggrieved by such promotions moved this Court successfully in 1998. The petitioner did not take recourse to any legal remedy, quietly accepted his fate and retired on 31.5.1998. Thereafter, he suddenly woke up for the enforcement of his legal rights to be considered for promotion albeit on the plea that he had passed the departmental examination while in service and approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.13575/05. This Court on 30.8.2007 disposed of the application with directions to the petitioner to file a representation to be disposed of in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 6.12.2007 has now been passed on merits. The petitioner seeks to assail this fresh order on a fresh 2 cause of action inter alia on relying upon certain orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3028/90. This Court, on the face of the pleadings is satisfied that the writ application suffers from grave delay and laches. For a cause of action of 1981, 1989 or may be even 1998, the petitioner retires on 31.5.1998 and belatedly wakes up in the year 2005. The aspect of delay was not raised or considered by this Court when it disposed of the application with certain directions for consideration of the representation. In pursuance thereof a fresh order has been passed which is sought to be made a fresh cause of action to tide over the earlier delay in moving the writ application. Question is does the impugned order 6.12.2007 constitute a fresh cause of action so as to condone the earlier delay on the part of the petitioner or should the petitioner now rest satisfied with the impugned order that his representation has been considered and decided. The facts of the present case adequately fall in the category of what has been described in (2008) 10 SCC 115 ( C. JACOB Versus DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING AND ANOTHER) as the „representation syndrome‟. This Court can do no better than quote 3 from paragraph Nos.8 to 11 and 14 of the same. “8. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employee who is terminated from service in 1980. He does not challenge the termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000, he decides to challenge the termination. He is aware that any such challenge would be rejected at the threshold on the ground of delay (if the application is made before tribunal) or on the ground of delay and laches (if a writ petition is filed before a High Court). Therefore, instead of challenging the termination, he gives a representation requesting that he may be taken back to service. Normally, there will be considerable delay in replying to such representations relating to old matters. Taking advantage of this position, the ex- employee files an application/writ petition before the tribunal/High Court seeking a direction to the employer to consider and dispose of his representation. The tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to the other side), without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. 9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any “decision” on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to “consider”. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The 4 tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/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. 10. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 11. 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 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.” 14. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasise the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for “consideration”. If the representation on the face of it is stale or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing “consideration” of such claims.” The writ application stands dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)