Judgment :- Though in this writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous, namely, to direct the respondent to consider his representation dated 26.8.2011, the representation itself does not inspire confidence. 2. In the representation, a copy of which is found at page No.5 of the typed set, the petitioner has stated that he was appointed on 2.12.2003 as a Shop-Supervisor on a part time temporary contract basis in Shop No.1583, Thadagam Main Road, Coimbatore. It is further stated that due to family circumstances, he could not attend the work and now, he demanded employment as shop-supervisor. Even in the affidavit it is not disclosed as to from which date he stopped work; the grounds on which he stopped and the dates on which he gave representation to the respondent. In such circumstances, it is a clear case of reviving a "stale" or "dead" cause of action and seeking a direction to the respondent to consider his representation 3. The Supreme Court very recently in Union of India and others vs. M.K.Sarkar reportedin (2010) 2 SCC 59 in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 had observed as follows: "14. The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing the appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. The ill-effects of such directions have been considered by this Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining : (SCC Public Prosecutor 122-23 in para 9) "9. The courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly, they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The tribunals/High courts routinely entertain such application/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obligerated or ignored." 15. When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 16. A court or tribunal, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the court or tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect. (emphasis added)" 4. In the light of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.