IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5728 of 2009 RAM PRAVESH PANDEY . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . For the Petitioner: Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. For Union of India: Mr. Gopesh Kumar, C.G.C. The State of Bihar: Tripurari Nath Ambastha, A/C to S.C.23. ----------- 4/ 19/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the Union of India. An I.A. application is stated to have been filed challenging a subsequent order dated 3.10.2008 as annexure-19. Learned counsel is unable to inform the number of the application. Copy has been served on the respondents. The Court requested counsel for the petitioner for his copy of the application for perusal so that the case be disposed off at the stage of admission, if possible. Let the office retain a Xerox copy of Annexure-19, dated 3.10.2008, and endeavour to place the I.A. application on record also. The petitioner was granted „Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension, on 20.11.1975. A re-investigation was followed by a show cause notice to him on 5.4.1980 and the pension suspended. After consideration the pension was cancelled on 16.4.1990. The petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1864/95. Noticing the delay in having moved the Court nearly five years later, the writ application was dismissed on the grounds of delay. The petitioner continued 2 to make representations. These were rejected by order dated 19.6.1996. The petitioner again questioned it in C.W.J.C. No. 9210 of 2000, which was permitted to be withdrawn on 15.9.2000 in light of the earlier order in C.W.J.C. No.1864/95. The petitioner however appears to have pursued matters described in the counter affidavit as “V.I.P. Sources” leading to the fresh order dated 3.10.2008 declining to re-consider his claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in C.W.J.C. No.1864/95 did not debar the petitioner from pursuing matters further with the authorities. Since the petitioner was permitted to represent before the respondents, the order dated 19.6.1996 declining to re-consider matters without reasons was not sustainable. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal trial No.975/08 arising out of Arrah Nawada P.S. Case No.1272/08 by the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bhojpur by judgement and order dated 7.6.2008 and represented afresh. The changed circumstances do not justify their rejection order dated 3.10.2008. Learned counsel for the Union of India opposed the application to submit that the matter has been examined more than once by the authorities. The pension was not a matter of right. The authorities were not satisfied of the documents on which fulfillment of the conditions for 3 grant of pension was being urged. The Court is satisfied that the order of cancellation dated 16.4.1990 achieved finality with the dismissal of C.W.J.C. No.1864/95. The petitioner was not “precluded” from representing before the authorities. It was not a liberty granted overriding the order of dismissal. The words „precluded‟ only means not prevented. The dismissal of C.W.J.C. No. 9210 of 2000 confirmed the repeat rejection of his claim on 19.6.1996. Thus, it was not on one occasion, but on two successive occasions that the petitioner was unable to persuade the Court to interfere. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the reluctance of the Court to interfere, he should have challenged the order in C.W.J.C. No.1864/95 on merits when the Court declined interference in writ jurisdiction. This opportunity was again available to him on 15.9.2000 when C.W.J.C. No.1920 of 2000 was withdrawn. The petitioner by his own conduct allowed matters to attain finality. He cannot be permitted to keep filing repeated representations after issues have attained finality in a Court of Law and based on any fresh orders on such representations seek to found a fresh cause of action. Litigation has to be allowed to achieve finality. The respondents cannot be repeatedly vexed on the same 4 issue especially when issues have attained finality not once but twice insofar as a Court of Law is concerned. In ,(2008) 10 SCC 115 (C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining) at Paragraph-11 the Supreme Court has held as follows:- : 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. The Court finds no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)