Direction To Consider Representation Can’t Revive Stale Claims - SCI

In C. Jacob Vs Director of Mining & Geology & anr., [ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 25795 of 2008 CC 11425/2008, reported in CDJ 2008 SC 1754], the Supreme Court of India held that a direction by a Court/Tribunal to consider or deal with a representation cannot revive stale or dead claims.

CASE SUMMARY

BRIEF FACTS:

- The Petitioner joined service as a Drill Helper in June, 1967, in the Regional Mining Cell, Trichy, in the erstwhile State Geology branch of Department of Industries and Commerce, State of Tamil Nadu.

- According to the Petitioner, his services were terminated in the year 1982, in pursuance of a show cause notice dated 8.7.1982.

- Nearly eighteen years later, the petitioner gave representations dated 5.5.2000 and 21.7.2000 to the 1^st Respondent requesting that he may be taken back into service. As the enclosure (show cause notice dated 8.7.1982) to the said representation was incomplete, the 1^st Respondent called upon him to send the complete document.

- The Petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the 1^st Respondent to dispose of his representation. The Administrative Tribunal disposed of the said application on 19.12.2002, without notice to the Respondents, with a direction to the Director of Geology & Mining (1^st Respondent), to consider Petitioner's representation dated 21.7.2000 and pass an order thereon within four months.

- In compliance with the said direction, the 1^st Respondent considered and rejected the Petitioner's representations by order dated 9.4.2002 on the ground that he did not rejoin duty after the expiry of his unearned medical leave and took up private employment against the Government Servants’ conduct rules and that though memo was issued to him followed by a show cause notice, despite receipt of the same by RPAD through his wife in 1981, he chose not to respond and submitted representations only in 2020 seeking permission to rejoin. The 1^st Respondent had also requested to produce the copies of the memorandum and other records issued by the State Geologist to him but he had not produced the copies of the same. The Respondent further reasoned that the erstwhile State Geology Branch of the Department of Industries and Commerce was upgraded as a separate Department of Geology and Mining and is functioning as a separate department with effect from 14.4.1983. The Government issued order dated 15.3.1989 permanently transferring the officers and staff of the State Geology Branch to the new Department of Geology and Mining and the Petitioner’s name was also not found in the list since he was absenting himself for several years. Moreover, the 1^st Respondent also stated that from the available records it was clear that the Petitioner stayed away from duty without any information and therefore, his request for permitting him to rejoin duty after a lapse of twenty years cannot be complied with.

- On 10.3.2003, the Petitioner filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the rejection order passed by the 1^st Respondent and also sought service benefits. The 1^st Respondent defended the application on the grounds stated in the rejection order.

- The said original application was transferred from the Tribunal to the Madras High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 13.4.2006 held that the department failed to establish that it had followed the mandatory requirements of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules by issuing a charge-memo, holding an enquiry and passing an order of punishment. The petition filed was therefore allowed directing that pension be sanctioned and that the entire arrears should be calculated and paid in eight weeks.

- The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the Respondents in an intra court appeal. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal by order dated 28.1.2008. The Division Bench held that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as on 18.7.1982, and therefore, he was not entitled to pension. The said order was the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court.

DECISION OF THE COURT:

Petition dismissed as having no merits.

REASONS PROVIDED/OBSERVATIONS MADE:

- Petitioner claims to have been terminated from service in 1980 and in 2000 knowing that any challenge to such termination would be rejected at the threshold on delay and latches, has made a representation and took an order for considering and passing orders on his representation in order to revive his claim.

- 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.

- 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 of a jural relationship' to give rise to a fresh cause of action.

DATE OF THE JUDGMENT: 03.10.2008

[This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.]