IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.3733 of 2010 S.Karunakaran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking) Boiler Auxiliaries Plant, rep. By the Manager-HR, (HR-RX, RMX, TDX & GAX), Ranipet-632 406. 2.The District Collector, Vellore, Vellore District. 3.The Convener and District Revenue Officer, Screening Committee, Collectorate, Vellore-632 009. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned letter dated 05.11.2009 issued by the first respondent in his office Ref.BAP:HR:LLX:WP13863/09, quash the same and to direct the first respondent to provide suitable employment to the petitioner considering the petitioner's age and qualification in the light of the directions issued by this court in a batch of writ petitions W.P.Nos.4113 of 1998, etc. on 13.05.2008 within a time fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Mani For Respondents : Mr.N.Senthilkumar, AGP for RR2 to 4 ORDER Heard both sides. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge the order passed by the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent, dated 5.11.2009 and after setting aside the same, to direct the first respondent to provide suitable employment to the petitioner considering his age and qualification in the light of the order passed by this court, dated 13.5.2008 in a batch of writ petitions beginning with W.P.No.4113 of 1998 etc. 2.Even before filing the present writ petition, the petitioner moved this Court with W.P.No.13863 of 2009, seeking for a direction to dispose of his representation, dated 13.3.2009 allegedly sent by his father D.Swaminathan. This court without giving notice to the first respondent BHEL, but directing the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice for respondents 2 to 4, directed the first respondent to consider his representation, dated 13.3.2009. No attempt was made to find out whether any such representation was sent. It is on receipt of the said direction issued by this court, dated 22.7.2009, the impugned order came to be passed. 3.In the impugned order, the first respondent intimated the petitioner that a copy of the letter, dated 13.3.2009 allegedly sent by the petitioner's father is not available on record. But there was a letter, dated 9.3.2009 dispatched on 13.3.2009 written by his father was found in the record. Except by saying that he owned 1.29 acres, no details of acquisition was furnished. In any event, in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, it was averred as follows: "Notwithstanding what is informed herebefore, it is also informed that the lands were acquired not by BHEL, but by the Government of Tamil Nadu and sufficient compensation was awarded by the State Government as per the Land Acquisition Awards. Moreover, all the eligible persons as per the G.O.No.87 of Tamil Nadu dt.27.1.1981 have been given employment and the Madras High Court has held in a batch of writ petitions that there cannot be any unlimited right to the family whose lands were acquired, to have an offer of employment made decades after the acquisition was completed." It is this order which is under challenge. 4.It must be noted that the petitioner's present age is 27 years and at the time of the alleged acquisition of land as per Award No.3/1983, dated 28.02.1983, the petitioner was not born. The further claim of the petitioner was that compensation issue arising out of acquisition was under litigation and finally, in A.S.No.129 of 1993, the Principal District Judge, Vellore disposed of the same on 20.11.2002. Thereafter, his father requested employment from the first respondent on 'land loser https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ category'. 5.In the meanwhile, he came to be made aware that a batch of writ petitions were disposed of by this court on 13.5.2008. Hence, he has come forward to file the present writ petition. In that writ petitions, the individual claims of each claimant were discussed and in some cases, this court granted relief and in some cases, the court refused to grant the relief based on the pleadings of the parties. But, that does not give any cause of action for the petitioner to make a claim especially after acquisition proceedings were over as early as February, 1983. Therefore, the first respondent was right in stating that they have no unlimited right to get employment solely on the ground that their lands were acquired. The petitioner cannot make such a plea after acquisition was completed. 6.Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is similarly placed like the other persons involved in the earlier litigation. This court is unable to accept the said plea. The petitioner cannot revive stale or dead cause of action on the basis of earlier order passed by this court, directing to consider his representation. In effect, the death cause of action cannot be revived merely because this court had given direction to consider his representation. In such matter, cause of action has to be calculated from the original date of cause of action and not from the date on which his representation was directed to be considered. 7.This question came to be considered by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Union of India and others Vs. M.K.Sarkar reported in 2010 (2) SCC 59. In paragraphs 14 to 16, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "14.The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C.Jacob V. Director of Geology and Mining:(SCC pp.122-23, para 9) "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 realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 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." 15.When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16.A court or tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect." (Emphasis added) 8.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vvk To 1.The Manager-HR, (HR-RX, RMX, TDX & GAX), Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, (A Government of India Undertaking) Boiler Auxiliaries Plant, Ranipet-632 406. 2.The District Collector, Vellore, Vellore District. 3.The Convener and District Revenue Officer, Screening Committee, Collectorate, Vellore-632 009. 4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranipet, Vellore District. +1cc to Mr.P.Mani, Advocate Sr 12152 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 12856 DM(CO) km/6.3. W.P.NO.3733 OF 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/