Successive representations regarding stale seniority claims do not extend limitation or create a fresh cause of action.

The applicant, an Assistant Audit Officer, passed the S.O.G.E. departmental examination in May 2007 and was promoted in February 2008.

He challenged the seniority of Respondents No. 4 to 7, who were absorbed from the A&E wing in April 2007 with retrospective effect.

Despite being aware of this alleged irregularity in 2007-08, the applicant filed several non-statutory representations between 2007 and 2022.

He previously filed OA No. 772/2019 on the same cause of action but withdrew it without liberty to file afresh.

The present OA was filed on 11.04.2023 along with MA No. 744/2023 seeking condonation of a nearly 15-year delay, citing a rejection letter dated 06.02.2023 as a fresh cause of action.

1. Whether the filing of repeated non-statutory representations or a subsequent rejection letter serves to extend the limitation period or create a fresh cause of action under the Administrative Tribunals Act.

2. Whether the applicant is precluded from filing a fresh application under the principle of abandonment of claims (Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC) after a previous simplicitor withdrawal.

3. Whether the delay in challenging a seniority matter of 2008 should be condoned in 2023.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prescribes a one-year limitation from the date of a final order or expiry of six months from a representation.

The court relied on State of Uttaranchal v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, holding that a "dead" cause of action cannot be revived by a fresh representation or a court-directed consideration.

Union of India v. Tarsem Singh establishes that while pay fixation may involve a continuing wrong, seniority and promotion disputes are subject to strict limitation and laches to prevent unsettling third-party rights.

Order 23 Rule 1(4) of the CPC was applied regarding the preclusion of fresh suits after withdrawal without leave.

The Tribunal found that the original cause of action arose in August 2008 when the respondents were absorbed with retrospective effect.

Under Section 21, the applicant was required to approach the Tribunal within one year of his first representation being ignored (approximately 2009), yet he waited 15 years.

The Tribunal reasoned that making nine successive representations does not "arrest time" nor create a "continuing wrong" in matters of seniority.

Crucially, since the applicant withdrew his 2019 OA without seeking liberty to file a fresh one, the current claim was deemed abandoned under the principles of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC.

The court underscored the doctrine of acquiescence, noting that the applicant performed his duties for over a decade without legal challenge, thereby allowing the respondents' rights to settle.

OA No. 329/2023 was dismissed as barred by limitation and the principle of abandonment.

The court ruled that stale claims regarding promotion and seniority cannot be entertained after such an inordinate delay, as doing so would cause prejudice to third parties and the administration.