JUDGMENT By the Court.—By this petition the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs : A. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to treat the length of the service of the petitoner w.e.f. 16.7.1986 i.e. the date of appointment/joining and not w.e.f. 18.12.1989, which is the date of approval of the petitioner’s appointment as Librarian in Arya Mahila Degree College, Shahjahanpur, and to direct the respondents to grant all benefits, including difference in revision(S) in the pay scale of petitoner, difference in time to time increments, grant of selection grade(s) accordingly and to send the petitioner for refresher course, within time specified by this Hon’ble Court. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to decide the representation of petitioner dated 25.7.1990 (Annexure 12), addressed to the respondent No. 2, representation dated 8.9.2009 (Annexure 13), addressed to the respondent No. 4 and representation dated 18.9.2010 (Annexure 14), addressed to the respondent No. 1, within time specified by this Hon’ble Court. 2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed on the post of Librarian on 16.7.1986 which is said to have been approved on 18.12.1989. Now the petitioner sates to be working as Head Librarian in Arya Maliha Decree College, Shahjahanpur. 3. Petitioner states that she made representation to the respondent on 25.7.1990 and then on 8.9.2009 and on18.9.2010 in respect to the claim of treating the petitioner in service from 16.7.86 and not from 18.12.1989 and for grant of service benefits. 4. The dispute which is being raised by the petitoner is about treating her length of service from 16.7.1986 and not from 18.12.1989 for the purpose of increment, grant of Selection Grade, pay fixation etc. 5. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that in respct to an old claim about which representation is said to have been made on 25.7.1990 and now in the year 2009/2010, a direction is sought from this Court for a decision. 6. On these facts, we can safely observe that the petitoner has approached this Court not only after much delay rather it may be a case of laches. 7. 6. On these facts, we can safely observe that the petitoner has approached this Court not only after much delay rather it may be a case of laches. 7. The tendency of filing representation for a claim and then for keeping mum for years and years and then by a subsequent representation prayer for revival of the claim which was earlier placed, is not to be encouraged as that may lead to a flood gate in respect to time-barred claims, stale claims. 8. If the claim of the petitioner is accepted, that may have financial implications and thus a representation which is said to have been made in the year 1990 by mens of fresh representation which is said to have been moved again in 2009-2010, the old claim of more than 20 years cannot be directed to be taken note and to be decided. 9. It is well-settled that so far law Courts are concerned, only those litigants deserves to get the relief who are prompt in their move and those litigants who sleep over their rights/claims are not to be permitted to get any relief just on an approach to this Court in casual manner as and when they desire to come. 10. In respect to a stale claim permitting consideration/revival in the light of the representation, the apex Court has clearly cautioned the authorities not to entertain the same. An old /stale claim if entertained and even if it is rejected by the authority will give a cause of action for the claimant to approach this Court or other forum and will give a fresh lease of life to start the proceedings which otherwise may not be permissible. The observations made by the Apex Court in the case of C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Minding and another, AIR 2009 SC 264 , is being quoted for convenience. : “When a direction is issued by a Court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the Court or Tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of ‘acknowledgment or a jural relationship’ to give raise to a fresh cause of action. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the Court or Tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of ‘acknowledgment or a jural relationship’ to give raise to a fresh cause of action. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasiize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for ‘consideration’. If the representation is on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, Courts should desist from directing ‘consideration’ of such claims.” 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we observe, that various decisions on which reliance has been tried to be placed as reported in JT 2010(4) 207, para 34, 1999 (8) SCC 287 , paras 15 and 18, AIR 1990 SC 1607 , para 44 (B), 1984 (4) SCC 329 , paras 13 and 14 and 2009(2) ADJ 190 by the counsel for the petitioner, being on merits of the particular case, have no application to the facts of the present case and cannot be pressed into service. 12. For the reasons given above, we are not inclined to issue a direction as prayed in this petition. 13. Accordingly writ petition fails and is dismissed. —————