Filing of repeated representations does not revive stale claims or extend the period of limitation.

The petitioner, formerly a Constable, had his services terminated on January 24, 2015.

He unsuccessfully challenged the termination through an appeal and a subsequent mercy petition.

After a delay of 11 years, the petitioner approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh seeking a Writ of Mandamus to quash the termination orders dated January 24, 2015, April 27, 2015, and August 14, 2015.

The petitioner attributed the delay to medical ailments and the filing of various representations to the authorities.

No medical documentation was provided to substantiate these claims.

Whether the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches despite the petitioner's filing of repeated representations and claims of ill health?

The court applied the doctrine of "Delay and Laches," establishing that law favors the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.

C.C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008), which held that representations regarding stale or time-barred claims do not furnish a fresh cause of action.

Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010), asserting that a decision on a belated representation does not revive a "dead" issue.

Union of India v. Chaman Rana (2018), which clarified that extra-legal remedies like mercy petitions do not excuse delays in seeking judicial relief.

State of T.N. v. Seshachalam (2007) was used to affirm that Article 14 cannot be invoked to save a period of limitation for a non-vigilant government servant.

The Court observed that there was an undisputed delay of 11 years in challenging the impugned termination orders.

It rejected the petitioner’s explanation of ill health because he failed to bring any supporting medical evidence on record.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s act of making repeated representations did not grant him a fresh cause of action nor did it arrest the period of limitation.

The Court emphasized that a representation after a final government decision is merely an "appeal for mercy" and not a pursuit of a legal remedy that excuses delay.

Because the petitioner was not "alert and vigilant," the court found no grounds to entertain the stale claim.

Repeated representations and unsubstantiated claims of illness cannot revive a dead claim or extend the limitation period.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine.