In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the legal principle that repeated representations do not extend the limitation period or revive a stale claim. The judgment, delivered on January 21, 2025, by a division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan, dismissed a writ petition (No. 1349 of 2025) challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment request.
The court observed that merely submitting repeated representations after the rejection of a claim does not create a fresh cause of action. It upheld the principle that legal remedies should be pursued diligently and within the prescribed timeframe.
Background of the Case
The case originated when the petitioner, Jampapuram Hanumanthu, sought compassionate appointment following his father’s demise while in service on September 6, 2007. The petitioner submitted his request for appointment on September 29, 2008, but it was rejected on November 18, 2008, by the Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway (Respondent No. 4).
Despite the rejection, the petitioner continued submitting representations over the years. His case was reconsidered but ultimately rejected again on October 16, 2020. Following this, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad, which dismissed his application (OA/020/685/2020) on March 25, 2022, citing lack of merit and excessive delay.
Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s ruling, the petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Key Legal Issues
The case raised the following legal questions:
1. Can repeated representations revive a claim that has already been rejected?
2. Does rejection of such representations create a fresh cause of action?
3. Can a writ petition be entertained after a long delay, despite the existence of prior rejections?
Court’s Ruling and Observations
After hearing Ms. Krishna Deepthi, representing Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, counsel for the respondents, the High Court ruled against the petitioner, dismissing the writ petition.
The court reiterated established legal principles, stating that repeated representations neither extend the period of limitation nor revive an old claim.
Key observations of the court:
– “It is settled in law that repeated representations neither confer jurisdiction nor extend the period of limitation. A stale claim cannot be revived simply by filing multiple representations.”
– Citing State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Rajmati Singh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1785), the court underscored that “repeated representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action if it had already arisen.”
– In reference to Surjeet Singh Sahni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 15 SCC 536, the court emphasized that courts should dismiss cases involving excessive delays rather than relegating petitioners to file representations, as doing so might be misinterpreted as a fresh cause of action.
– “Laches cannot be explained by continuously making representations even after rejection of the claim on merits.”
The High Court further noted that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal after nearly 12 years from the first rejection (2008), and even the present writ petition was filed almost three years after the Tribunal’s dismissal (2022). The court found no justification for such a delay and dismissed the petition outright.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, adhering to Supreme Court precedents, dismissed the writ petition, citing delay and laches as a bar to the claim. The court clarified that a claim once rejected cannot be revived merely by submitting multiple representations.
