A representation cannot revive a stale service-benefits claim arising decades earlier.

The applicant stated that he served as an Audio-Visual Specialist at the Indian Maritime University from 26 June 1987 to 16 June 1990, when he resigned and was relieved from service.

He later sought settlement of his GPF, gratuity, earned leave and other eligible terminal benefits by a representation dated 23 March 2026.

He filed the OA seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and decide that representation within a time fixed by the Tribunal.

Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation concerning terminal benefits arising from service that ended in 1990.

Whether the claim was stale and could not be revived through a later representation.

The Tribunal relied on Chief Executive Officer v. Lalitha (2025 INSC 565), which states that a court or tribunal should determine whether a claim or representation concerns a live issue or a dead or stale dispute before directing its consideration; it should not direct consideration or reconsideration of a stale claim.

It also relied on C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, AIR 2009 SC 264; Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59; and Union of India v. Chaman Rana, AIR 2018 SC 1478, as supporting the same principle.

The applicant’s claimed entitlement related to service ending upon his resignation in 1990, but he sought action on a representation made in 2026.

Applying the cited authorities, the Tribunal considered the underlying claim stale and held that a later representation could not revive it or warrant a direction to the respondents to consider it.

It dismissed the OA at the admission stage, granting no relief.