Delay of 26 years in seeking regularization rendered the petition inadmissible; mere representations do not constitute a fresh cause of action.

In the instant petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise his services from the date his juniors have been regualrised.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is working on daily wages since 14.8.1983. The persons who were engaged subsequent to him have been regularised by order dated 16.3.1998.

3. Counsel for respondents raises preliminary objection that the petition suffers from delay and latches. Even if the case of the petitioner is accepted, the cause of action had arisen in the year 1998 and the petitioner has approached this court after more than 26 years. Thus, the petitioner has been in slumber for a period of 26 years.

4. In the case of NDMC Vs. Pan Singh 2007 9 SCC 278, the Apex Court has opined that though there is no period of limitation providing for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ Signed by: VARGHESE NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34209 WP-868-2024 petition should be filed within a reasonable time.

5. It is settled law that mere submission of representation does not arrest the time and does not give rise to a fresh cause of action.

6. In C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115, the Apex Court while dealing with the concept of representations and the directions issued by the Court or Tribunal to consider the representations and the challenge to the said rejection thereafter. In that context, the court has expressed thus: -

“Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the Department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the Department or to inform the appropriate Department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.”

7. In the case of Union of India Vs. M.K.Sarkar (2010)2 SCC 59 this Court after referring to C. Jacob (supra) has ruled that :-

“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.”

8. In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. through its Chairman & Managing Director v. K. Thangappan and another (2006) 4 SCC 322, the Court took note of the Signed by: VARGHESE NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34209 WP-868-2024 factual position and laid down that when nearly for two decades the respondent- workmen therein had remained silent mere making of representations could not justify a belated approach.

9. In State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray (1977) 3 SCC 396 it has been opined that making of repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation of delay. The same principle was reiterated in the case of State of Uttaranchal & another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 179.

10. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or Tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance, it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time.

11. In v