IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1672 of 2008 RAMESHWAR SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3/ 25/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to have retired from service on 31.7.1998. It appears that he came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.7864/03 inter alia with a claim for grant of time bound promotion and shifting of the date of exemption granted to him from passing the professional examination from 1998 to 1991 as also for quashing of the denial of increments resulting in lesser fixation at the time of retirement. This Court was not persuaded to interfere in C.W.J.C. No.7864/03. It is apparent from the order of the Court that in order to avoid an adverse verdict the petitioner withdrew the writ application to pursue his claims before the authorities. He is now aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.2008 denying him the aforesaid benefits. 2 The nature of the staleness of the claim cannot be lost sight of. Though the order in C.W.J.C. No.7864/03 is not explicit, but this much is apparent from the recitals therein that presumably this was one of the reasons why the Court declined to entertain the belated claim. The staleness of the claim declined interference by this Court on a writ petition of 2003 does not get wiped out and does not vest a fresh cause of action in the petitioner merely by reason of a subsequent order dated 17.4.2008 on his representation. It does not revive any claim and does not create a fresh right in the petitioner to assail the same. Dealing with a similar matter with regard to a belated claim, declined interference by the Court, withdrawn to pursue a representation and founding a fresh cause of action after the disposal of such representation, referring to the same as “representation syndrome” the Supreme Court in (2008) 10 S.C.C. 115 (C. JACOB Versus DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY AND MINING AND ANOTHER) at paragraphs-8 to 11 and 14 has held:- 3 “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 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. 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 4 and care in issuing direction 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.” This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order for the same reasons. The writ application is dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)