Fresh Representations Do Not Revive Stale Claims: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

The Allahabad High Court has held that representations made after lapse of time cannot revive stale claim. Rejection of such representations cannot be challenged before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it held.Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Tripura and others v. Arabinda Chakraborty and others and other cases, Justice Abdul Moin held “…merely because representations have been submitted by an employee which came to be decided, the decision would not entail revival of stale claim.”Petitioner was awarded the punishment of adverse entry and stoppage of one increment by the Respondent Bank on 23.05.2007. An appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected on the grounds of being filed beyond time. Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a review on 12.03.2008 which was dismissed as non-maintainable on 18.04.2023.Counsel for Respondent Bank raised preliminary objections on the grounds of the petition being barred by delay and laches as even though representations may have been filed, the Petitioner never approached the Court to expedite the review or against the punishment order. Only after the review had been dismissed for maintainability, the Petitioner approached the Court against the punishment order passed in 2007 for the first time. Representations would not give life to a stale claim against the order passed in 2007, he argued. Counsel for Petitioner contended that various representations were filed by the Petitioner before the authority to decide the review, however, no response was received. He argued that since this is a continuing cause of action that is affecting him as of date, the writ petition is maintainable. Further, he relied on the fact that the review was dismissed in April 2023. On the reliance placed by the Counsel for Petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and another vs Tarsem Singh, the Court observed that “Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a belated service claim can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches where remedy is sought by filing of writ petition or limitation where a remedy is sought by application to the administrative tribunal but one of the exception to the said rule would be relating to a continuing wrong where the service related claim is based on a continuing wrong. Relief can be granted even if there is long delay in seeking remedy with reference to the date on which continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury.” Distinguishing the decision of the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh from the facts of the present case, the Court observed that the exemption carved out in Tarsem Singh would not be applicable in the present case as the petitioner was not aggrieved by an administrative decision. The order under challenge was passed in disciplinary proceedings after due consideration by the authorities. While dismissing the petition, the Court observed that the Petitioner sat silent and did not challenge the punishment order before any competent court of law. Merely because the order in review was passed in 2023, the claim against the punishment order passed in 2007 cannot be revived. Case Title: Mahendra Pal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. And 5 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 252 [WRIT - A No. - 5351 of 2023]Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 252Counsel for Petitioner: Vaibhav SrivastavaCounsel for Respondent: Gaurav Mehrotra, CSC. Click Here To Read/Download Order

Fresh Representations Do Not Revive Stale Claims: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Upasna Agrawal

Tags