A belated representation cannot revive a stale or time-barred service claim.

The applicant, a Railway employee, was placed under suspension from 19 February 2000 following his arrest and remand in a criminal case.

After disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service on 28 May 2007.

The Tribunal upheld his dismissal in OA No. 537/2009 and directed payment of admissible subsistence allowance; his later application for enhanced subsistence allowance was dismissed.

In 2019, he sought back wages for the period from suspension to dismissal.

Following the Tribunal’s direction to consider his representation, the respondent rejected it on 27 April 2020.

The applicant challenged that rejection, contending, among other things, that the suspension had become invalid because it was not reviewed within the period prescribed by Rule 5 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s representation gave rise to a fresh cause of action to claim back wages for the period from 19 February 2000 to 28 May 2007

2. Whether consideration and rejection of a representation concerning a stale or time-barred claim could revive that claim

Rule 5(5)–(7) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, concerning continuation, review, extension, modification and revocation of suspension, was relied on by the applicant; the Tribunal did not determine the back-wage claim by applying those provisions.

The Tribunal applied the principles in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59: a response to a representation does not create a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or time-barred claim, and delay must be assessed by reference to the original cause of action.

It also referred to Surjeet Singh Sahni v. State of U.P., SLP (C) No. 3008 of 2022, order dated 28 February 2022, and State of T.N. v. Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, on the principles that representations do not extend limitation and that delay and laches may defeat a claim.

The respondents’ res judicata argument based on the earlier proceedings was recorded, but the Tribunal’s stated conclusion rested on the stale-claim and fresh-cause-of-action principles.

The Tribunal treated the 27 April 2020 order as a decision on a representation made pursuant to its earlier direction, rather than as an independent event creating a new entitlement to back wages.

Applying the cited Supreme Court authorities, it held that consideration of the representation could not revive the underlying claim or reset the relevant period for assessing delay and laches.

Although the applicant relied on the suspension-review requirements in Rule 5, the Tribunal did not decide whether those requirements entitled him to back wages; it concluded that the challenge to the representation’s rejection did not warrant interference.

It dismissed the OA as devoid of merit and made no order as to costs.