AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member (J))
Heard both counsels.
In the present OA, the applicant has sought the following relief:
“a)Direct the respondents to consider and dispose the representation submitted dated 23.03.2026, wherein the applicant has requested to settle his eligible terminal benefits such as GPF, gratuity, earned leave and such other benefits in accordance with the applicable rules, within a time limit as may be fixed by this Hon. Tribunal and communicate the decision to the Applicant.”
The applicant has filed this OA stating that he has submitted a representation dated 23.03.2026 to the 1st respondent stating that he has worked as Audio-Visual Specialist from 26.06.1987 to 16.06.1990 and thereafter, he resigned and was relieved from service and requested for settlement of benefits such as GPF, gratuity, earned leave, etc.
It is observed that the applicant is seeking certain benefits with respect to his service rendered for three years in 1st respondent's university during the period from 26.06.1987 to 16.06.1990. The cause of action, if any, in the case of applicant arose in 1990 after his resignation and he did not make any claim in this regard at that point of time. Now, after 26 years, applicant is trying to revive the cause of action and claiming service benefits in respect of the service rendered between 26.06.1987 and 16.06.1990 by giving representation.
In this regard, the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Chief Execute Officer Vs. Lalitha (2025 INSC 565) has held that:-
“A Court or Tribunal before direction “consideration” of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a “live” issue or whether it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale” issue. If it is with reference to a “dead” or “stale issue” or dispute, the Court/Tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration.”
Similar observation has been made by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Mining and Another (AIR 2009 SC 264), Union of India Vs. M. K. Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59] and in Union of India Vs. Chaman Rana (AIR 2018 SC 1478).
In view of the above, it is apparent that the applicant is seeking relief in respect of the cause of action which arose in 1990, now has become “stale”. He cannot be allowed to revive the same after 26 years. Accordingly, OA is dismissed at the admission stage.