Allahabad High Court

2. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the mother of the petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1960 and she had been died on 12.11.1974.

3. For the reason best known to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation after lapse of 51 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of C Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Mining and another reported in AIR 2009 S.C.,264 it has been clearly said that claim after lapse of 18-20 years if that is found to be stale is not to be given a fresh lease of life. A dead claim is not to be permitted to be revived or is to be made alive. The matter before the Apex Court was in respect to an employee who was terminated from service and after a silence of about 18 years when no record is available regarding his previous service fresh chapter started from filing a representation in the year 2000 which was rejected by the authority but the learned Single Judge allowed his appeal which was reversed in an intra court appeal and that was affirmed by the Apex Court.

4. The observation as made by the Apex Court in respect to direction to decide the representation and at the same time in respect to consideration of a claim which has become stale and is time barred can be quoted at this 2 WRIA No. 17575 of 2025 place-

6. "The Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to other side) without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. The Courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assumes that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representations 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 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, 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 the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay proceeding the representation and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar or limitation or the latches gets obliterated or ignored."

7. 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 representation unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or 3 WRIA No. 17575 of 2025 revive a stale or dead claim.

8. 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 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 'acknowledgment or a relationship' to give rise to a fresh cause of action.

10. We are constrained to refer to the several facts of the issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for 'consideration'. If the representation is 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.

11. The present case is a typical example of 'representation and relief'. The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the termination. A stage is reached when no record is available regarding his previous service. In the representations which he makes in 2000 he claims that he should be taken back to service. But on rejection of the said representation by order dated 4.9.2002, he filed a writ petition claiming service benefits by referring the said order of rejection as the cause of action . As noticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim, as if it was a live claim made in time, finds fault with the respondents for not producing material to show that termination was proceeded by due inquiry and declares the termination as illegal. When a person approaches a court after two decades after termination the burden would be on him to prove what he alleges. The learned Single Judge dealt with the matter as if he the appellant had approached the court immediately after the 4 WRIA No. 17575 of 2025 termination. All this happened, because of grant of an innocuous prayer to 'consider' a representation relating to a stale issue."

5. The same view was again taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.13 & 14 of the case Union of India and others Vs. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 SCC 798.

6. It has been said time and again that law/court is to help a litigant who has a watch over his rights/interest and a person who is so casual, unconcern in respect to his claim and has permitted the claim having become barred on account of long lapse or otherwise then the scrutiny in the past after unusual gap in absence of the relevant record of which the litigant may be able to take advantage is not to be given. If this view is not taken then there will be no end and finality of the litigation and it will be an endless process.

6. If the dispute/claim was finally decided or was put to a rest by the conduct of a party then after unusual and unexplained delay that is not to be revived and the things which has taken rest is to be permitted to take rest as their revival may lead to serious complication. Otherwise also by conduct of a person by estoppal and acquiescence the issue can be deemed to be closed and thus that is not to be disturbed as that can have no justification either in the facts or in law.

7. For the reasons given above this court is not to issue the writ, as prayed.

8. Writ petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. November 21, 2025 saqlain (Prakash Padia,J.)

2. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the mother of the petitioner had been appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1960 and she had been died on 12.11.1974.

3. For the reason best known to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation after lapse of 51 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of C Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Mining and another reported in AIR 2009 S.C.,264 it has been clearly said that claim after lapse of 18-20 years if that is found to be stale is not to be given a fresh lease of life. A dead claim is not to be permitted to be revived or is to be made alive. The matter before the Apex Court was in respect to an employee who was terminated from service and after a silence of about 18 years when no record is available regarding his previous service fresh chapter started from filing a representation in the year 2000 which was rejected by the authority but the learned Single Judge allowed his appeal which was reversed in an intra court appeal and that was affirmed by the Apex Court.

4. The observation as made by the Apex Court in respect to direction to decide the representation and at the same time in respect to consideration of a claim which has become stale and is time barred can be quoted at this 2 WRIA No. 17575 of 2025 place-

6. "The Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to other side) without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. The Courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assumes that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representations 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 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, 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 the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay proceeding the representation and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar or limitation or the latches gets obliterated or ignored."

7. 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 representation unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or 3 WRIA No. 17575 of 2025 revive a stale or dead claim.

8. 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 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 'acknowledgment or a relationship' to give rise to a fresh cause of action.

10. We are constrained to refer to the several facts of the issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for 'consideration'. If the representation is 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.

11. The present case is a typical example of 'representation and relief'. The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the termination. A stage is reached when no record is available regarding his previous service. In the representations which he makes in 2000 he claims that he should be taken back to service. But on rejection of the said representation by order dated 4.9.2002, he filed a writ petition claiming service benefits by referring the said order of rejection as the cause of action . As noticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim, as if it was a live claim made in time, finds fault with the respondents for not producing material to show that termination was proceeded by due inquiry and declares the termination as illegal. When a person approaches a court after two decades after termination the burden would be on him to prove what he alleges. The learned Single Judge dealt with the matter as if he the appellant had approached the court immediately after the 4 WRIA No. 17575 of 2025 termination. All this happened, because of grant of an innocuous prayer to 'consider' a representation relating to a stale issue."

5. The same view was again taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.13 & 14 of the case Union of India and others Vs. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 SCC 798.

6. It has been said time and again that law/court is to help a litigant who has a watch over his rights/interest and a person who is so casual, unconcern in respect to his claim and has permitted the claim having become barred on account of long lapse or otherwise then the scrutiny in the past after unusual gap in absence of the relevant record of which the litigant may be able to take advantage is not to be given. If this view is not taken then there will be no end and finality of the litigation and it will be an endless process.

6. If the dispute/claim was finally decided or was put to a rest by the conduct of a party then after unusual and unexplained delay that is not to be revived and the things which has taken rest is to be permitted to take rest as their revival may lead to serious complication. Otherwise also by conduct of a person by estoppal and acquiescence the issue can be deemed to be closed and thus that is not to be disturbed as that can have no justification either in the facts or in law.

7. For the reasons given above this court is not to issue the writ, as prayed.

8. Writ petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. November 21, 2025 saqlain (Prakash Padia,J.)