CWP(T) No. 6786/2008 02.12.2010 Present: Mr. V. D. Khidta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Petitioner was working as a Clerk in one of the Units of the respondent known as ‘Himalaya Fertilizer Ltd.”. She was senior to Sh. R. S. Pathania, private respondent No.3. Apprehending that Mr. Pathania would be promoted to the next higher post of Office Assistant without considering her name, she made a representation on 25.4.1980. However, respondent No.1 promoted Sh. Pathania on 1.6.1981. Aggrieved of the same, petitioner made a representation on 16.4.1982. Apparently no decision was taken by respondent No.1 on the same. Be that as it may be, it is the case of the petitioner that even thereafter she repeatedly continued to make representations till 22.6.1989 which also were not decided by respondent No.1. Now this fact is seriously disputed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 admits that petitioner made only three representations dated 25.4.1980, 16.4.1982 and 22.6.1989. Aggrieved petitioner approached the State Administrative Tribunal only in the year 1990 and her petition was disposed of with the direction that her representation be considered and decided by a speaking order. In terms of impugned office order dated 24.5.2000 (Annexure A-2), such representation stands decided. 2. No doubt it has come on record that nothing objectionable was found against the petitioner and her case ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Office Assistant in the year 1981, but however I am not inclined to interfere in this petition for the following reasons:- (i) there is nothing on record to show that between the years 1982 and 1989 petitioner assailed the order passed in favour of Sh. R. S. Pathania. Continuous representations would not give right to a fresh cause of action. In any event, respondent No.1 does not admit having received representations between the years 1982 and 1989. Delay of 7 years is not sufficiently explained. She could have promptly approached the Court; (ii) After filing of the original application, petitioner sought voluntary retirement from her employer. Even at that time she did not protest against the non-consideration of her appointment to the post of Office Assistant; (iii) Settled position cannot be unsettled at such a belated stage. 2. Consequently present petition is dismissed. December 02, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.