Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

Why in News?

Recently the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in matter of Mohd. Sadeeq v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. has held that mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations.

• An order passed in compliance with court directions neither revives a stale claim nor initiates a fresh cause of action for the petitioner.

What was the Background of Mohd. Sadeeq v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr. Case?

• The petitioner, a former Sentry/Field Assistant at Government Resin and Turpentine Factory Fatehpur, claims to have informed the police about militants, resulting in receiving life threats and his subsequent relocation to Jammu City for safety.
• After 10 years, upon returning, he found the factory closed and sought retirement benefits, which were denied. The respondents argue for dismissal citing delay and continuous absence from duty since 2002, indicating abandonment of service.
• The Petitioner thus made representations before the respondents in 2015 asking for his retiral benefits. However, the representations of the Petitioner were rejected. Thus, the Petitioner filed the writ petition.
• The writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's representations passed by this Court in SWP No. 2113/2017, has been rejected.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Sanjay Dhar observe that observed that the petitioner left his posting in 2002 and filed his first representation before the respondents in 2017. Thus, for almost 15 years, the petitioner did not make any effort to know the status of his service or resume his duties. Further, the petitioner has not placed any material on record to substantiate his claim that he faced life threats which disturbed him mentally while he was working in the Resin Factory in 2002.
• The Court also held that mere filing of representations does not extend the period of limitation unless an action has been taken on those representations. Even when an order is passed rejecting and considering the claim of the petitioner in compliance to the directions of the court, such an order does not revive the stale claim nor does it give rise to a fresh cause of action.
• The Court even referred the case of C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Another (2008):
  • In this case, it was held that if a representation on the face of it is stale or it does not contain particulars showing that it is regarding a live claim, then courts should desist from directing consideration of such claims.

What is the Limitation Act?

About:

• The ‘Law of Limitation’ provides an aggrieved party with the time limit for different suits within which the party can approach the court for relief.
• The suit is dismissed by the competent court where the time limit provided by the limitation act expires. A situation may exist where, due to his physical or mental condition, the person cannot file a suit or application.
• In such cases, the law may not be the same and additional rights and benefits may be accorded to individuals with disabilities.

Period of Limitation:

• Section 2(j) of Limitation Act ,1963 deals with period of limitation.
• Period of limitation means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule, and prescribed period means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

When Period of Limitation Starts:

• The time from which the period of limitation begins depends on the case's subject matter, and a specific starting point of such period is provided extensively by the Schedule in the Act.
• It generally starts from the date when the summons or notice is served, or the date on which the decree or judgment is passed, or the date on which the event that forms the basis of the suit takes place.