Mere Filing Of Representation Doesn't Extend Period Of Limitation Unless Any Action Is Taken : Jammu & Kashmir High Court
A single judge bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Dhar while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K and Anr. has held that mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations. Background Facts Mohd. Sadeeq (Petitioner) was...
A single judge bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Dhar while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K and Anr. has held that mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations.
Background Facts
Mohd. Sadeeq (Petitioner) was appointed as a Field Assistant in a Government Resin Factory in 1974. In 2002, the Petitioner furnished information regarding presence of some militants to the police due to which he started receiving life threats. Due to the adverse situation, the Petitioner left the state of J&K for 10 years. When he returned after 10 years, he came to know that the Resin Factory in which he was employed had closed down and the employees had been given the benefit of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 2010.
The Petitioner returned back with the intention of resuming his duties but he came to know that his services were terminated by an order dated 07.07.2004. The Petitioner thus made representations before the Respondents in 2015 asking for his retiral benefits. However, the representations of the Petitioner were rejected. Thus, the Petitioner filed the writ petition.
It was contended by the Petitioner that the order of rejection of his retiral benefits was devoid of any reason. Further the order of termination of his services was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard and is thus violative of principles of natural justice. Thus, the Petitioner was either entitled to reinstatement or benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches. Further the Petitioner was continuously absent from duty since 2002 and thus he had abandoned his services. The Respondents waited for 2 years to ascertain the whereabouts of the Petitioner but his whereabouts did not become known to them.
Findings of the Court
The court observed that the Petitioner left his posting in 2002 and filed his first representation before the Respondents in 2017. Thus for almost 15 years, the Petitioner did not make any effort to know the status of his service or resume his duties. Further, the Petitioner has not placed any material on record to substantiate his claim that he faced life threats which disturbed him mentally while he was working in the Resin Factory in 2002.
The court further observed that filing of representations and a decision thereon in respect of a stale claim does not offer a fresh cause of action to a litigant. The court relied on the judgment of C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and another wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that if a representation on the face of it is stale or it does not contain particulars showing that it is regarding a live claim, then courts should desist from directing consideration of such claims.
The court further held that Mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations…..even when an order is passed rejecting and considering the claim of the petitioner in compliance to the directions of the court such an order does not revive the stale claim nor does it give rise to a fresh cause of action
The court further observed that even though an enquiry was not conducted prior to termination of services of the Petitioner, in the factual scenario of the case, the Petitioner had himself admitted to not attending his duties for years. Thus, even if an enquiry would've been conducted, it would not have had any fruitful purpose
With the aforesaid observations, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Case No.- CM No. 1463/2022
Case Title: Mohd. Sadeeq vs State of J & K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 106
Counsel for the Petitioner- Mr. A.A.Khan
Counsel for Respondents- Mr. D.C.Raina, Advocate General with Assisting Counsel for R-1. Ms. Anshuja Tak, Advocate for R-2.