Point of Law: Representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance does not give rise to a fresh cause of action.

ORDER :

Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer and Mr. Het Ram, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ to certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order of direction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by quashing the impugned office order dated 03-01-2019 passed by the respondent No.2 that is annexure P-8 and 04-08-2014 that is annexure P-5 passed by the respondents as there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other order of direction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents to the effect by directing them to grant salary for a period of 395 days treating it as a medical leave.”

3. By medium of this petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the action of the respondents vide which they have not granted the medical benefits of medical leave for 395 days i.e. with effect from 01.06.2013 to 30.06.2014.

4. Prima facie, the instant petition that was filed on 15.12.2020 is barred by delay and laches, as is also contended by the learned Law Officer for the respondents.

5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the instant petition is very much in time as the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.1600/2017 in this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 15.05.2018 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision and it is only thereafter that the respondents have taken a decision by issuing Office Order dated 03.01.2019.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

7. No doubt, a direction was issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition i.e. CWP No.1600/2017 to consider the case of the petitioner, but then as per settled law, the repeated rejections thereafter would not furnish a cause of action to the petitioner to file the petition by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, more particularly, when the writ was already barred by delay and laches at the earlier occasion and despite this directions were issued to the respondents to take a decision.

8. In coming to such conclusion, we are duly supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and another (2008) 10 SCC 115 wherein it was held as under:

“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 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.”

9. The aforesaid legal position was thereafter reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 59 by observing as under:-

“The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of the respondent without examining the merits, and directing