G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE challenge, in the writ petition, is to the order dated 4.3.2014 (Annexure P29), whereby the Mercy Appeals dated 21.9.2013 & 4.1.2014 have been dismissed. It is not disputed that the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 7.6.2007 (Annexure P24) and thereafter, his appeal was dismissed on 18.10.2007 (Annexure P26). He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1750 of 2011, which was dismissed on 18.7.2012 (Annexure P27) on the ground of delay and laches. The relevant order reads as under: - "The order of termination impugned in the present petition is dated 7.6.2007. Even the appeal against that order was also dismissed vide order dated 18.10.2007. The order passed in the appeal has not been impugned in the present petition. Still considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this court after a period of more than five years after the passing of the order of termination, the petition deserves to be dismissed on account of delay and laches. Ordered accordingly."
(2.) THEREAFTER , review of the order dated 18.7.2012 was sought by filing Review Application No. 416 of 2012, which was also dismissed on 17.9.2012 (Annexure P28). The said order reads as under: - "Review of order dated 18.7.2012, dismissing the writ petition on account of delay and laches, has been sought with the change of counsel on the ground that there were certain orders passed subsequent to the order of termination, however, the same could not be placed on record. It cannot be disputed that the aforesaid orders were within the knowledge of the petitioner when the writ petition was filed. It was adjourned number of times on the request of counsel for the petitioner spread over a period of one year. Considering the abovesaid facts, I do not find any case for review of the order can possibly be made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying application is also dismissed." It is apparent that after the dismissal of the review petition, mercy appeals were filed on 21.9.2013 & 4.1.2014, which have now been dismissed. Once, this Court has already dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, the issue of re -opening it would not arise as the petitioner, merely by filing mercy petition, has made an attempt to create a fresh cause of action to challenge the earlier orders passed.
(3.) REFERENCE can be safely made to the observations of the Apex Court in State of Tripura and Others v. Arabinda Chakraborty and Others : (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 460. The relevant observations read as under: - "18. It is a settled legal position that the period of limitation would commence from the date on which the cause of action takes place. Had there been any statute giving right of appeal to the respondent and if the respondent had filed such a statutory appeal, the period of limitation would have commenced from the date when the statutory appeal was decided. In the instant case, there was no provision with regard to any statutory appeal. The respondent kept on making representations one after another and all the representations had been rejected. Submission of the respondent to the effect that the period of limitation would commence from the date on which his last representation was rejected cannot be accepted. If accepted, it would be nothing but travesty of the law of limitation. One can go on making representations for 25 years and in that event one cannot say that the period of limitation would commence when the last representation was decided. On this legal issue, we feel that the courts below committed an error by considering the date of rejection of the last representation as the date on which the cause of action had arisen. This could not have been done.";