ORDER

M. S. Latif, M(J) Oral 01/ The applicant, through the medium of this OA seeks a direction upon the respondents to consider his representation dated 10-02-2024.

02/ Perusal of the file reveals that after a gap of 20 years, the applicant has approached the court after coming out of a deep slumber. In the face of it, the application is miserably time barred and hit by latches, thus, not maintainable. The condonation of delay application, accompanying this O.A, is also bereft of any reason, as such, it deserves no consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed.

03/ Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the applicant has been approaching the respondents by filing representation, therefore, his cause is continuing. This court is not inclined to accept this argument because of the fact that mere filing of representation does not revive a cause of action, which is already time barred. In this regard, I am fortified by the judgement of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Supreme court, in the case titled State of Tamil Nadu versus Sesha Challan 2007 vol. 10 SCC 137, wherein it has been held that filing a representation alone is not enough to come out of the impediment of period of limitation, the delay or latches is a relevant factor for the court of law to determine the question as to whether claim made by a applicant/Government servant deserves consideration and the undue delay may otherwise deprive him/her of the desired benefit.

04/ It is no more res integra that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. In a judgement issued by the apex court in a matter titled C. Jacob versus Director, Geology & Mining, reported in 2008 vol. 10 SCC 115 as also in Union of India and others versus M.K.Sarkar, 2010 vol. 2 SCCC 59, Their Lordships have held that a representation filed at a belated stage with regard to a stale or dead issue/dispute is considered and decided only in compliance with the direction so issued by the Court/Tribunal. However, the date of such decision cannot be considered as to furnish a fresh cause of action for reviving a dead issue or time barred dispute.

05/ Mr. Waseem Gul- GA vehemently argued that the applicant has approached the Court after more than 20 years and the claim made in this O.A is miserably barred by limitation, therefore, this application deserves to be dismissed in limine.

06/ Heard learned counsel for the parties. 07/ Admittedly, the case pertains to a pensioner, who, at this point of time, is around 80 years of age. As already held by this Court in a number of cases that pensioners deserve to be treated at least with smile, compassion and sympathy. However, that does not mean that every claim/representation of an employee/pensioner made to the Government/employer may be decided to his/her liking or may be replied on merits.

08/ As representations relating to matters which have become stale or are barred by limitation can itself be rejected on that ground alone without examining its merits but, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the respondents, if they so choose, may consider the case of the applicant keeping in view his age, which is more than 80 years by now and give due regard to the concept of smile and compassion. Needless to say that the respondents are free to take note of the representation of the applicant as he, at least, deserves an ear to his grievances.

09/ The O.A shall stand disposed of accordingly. M.S.LATIF Member (J) Tariq Mota 29-02-2024