Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pradeep Kant, Pradeep Kant, Rajiv Sharma , Rajiv Sharma
KARAN KUMAR YADAV
Versus
U P STATE PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL AND
Decided On : 20 November 2007
W. P. No. 1433 of 2007
Limitation - Termination of Services - U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, Section 5(1)(b) - Indian Limitation Act, Section 5 - Rules, 1992, Rule 8(4)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a position in 1984, claiming to have passed an examination which he had not. His services were terminated in 1985, and he approached the Tribunal in 1993, arguing that the claim was not barred by limitation due to ongoing representations and a condonation of delay application.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal found the claim petition to be barred by limitation, as the termination order was issued in 1985 and the petitioner's representations did not prevent the limitation period from running. The Tribunal also held that the application for condonation of delay was not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the claim petition was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the application for condonation of delay was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that the claim petition was indeed barred by limitation, as the provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 and the Rules, 1992 did not allow for the condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. The representations made by the petitioner did not prevent the running of the limitation period.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the termination of services was upheld.
This petition challenges the order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, dated 6th August, 2007 by means of which the claim petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation. Leaving chequered history of the case it would be relevant to mention that the petitioner had applied for being appointed as Manager-cum-Clerk/vyasthapak in pursuance of the advertisement published in the year 1984. The petitioner in his application has mentioned that he had appeared in the examination of Diploma in Tourism and Hotel Management of which result has not been declared but at the same time he has also mentioned that he has passed the examination.
2. The petitioner who, was earlier working as daily wage employee, was issued appointment order on 1. 1. 1985 and was also sent for training. Since the petitioner was not possessed with Diploma in Tourism and Hotel Management from any recognized institution, as per the terms of the advertisement, he was given an opportunity to produce the same. Though the petitioner in his joining letter dated 1. 1. 1995 has mentioned about the annexing of Diploma Certificate but later on in response to the letter dated 15. 10. 1985 the petitioner in his letter dated 17. 10. 1985, has mentioned that till date he has not received any Diploma even the Admit Card of Raj as than University was not filed.
3. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 9th December, 1985 after finding that though the petitioner had appeared in the examination of Diploma course in the year 1982-1983 but he did not give any evidence to show that he has passed the said examination and therefore, he was required by the office order dated 15. 10. 1985 to produce the necessary certificate/diploma which the petitioner failed to produce and in his application dated 17. 10. 1985 the facts mentioned clearly reveal that he has not passed the examination till date. He had obtained the appointment by mis-statement of fact and by concealing true facts. It was against this order, firstly a writ petition was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy to approach before the State Public Services Tribunal vide order dated 22. 1. 1986 thereafter the petitioner approached the Tribunal in July. 1993.
4. Initially the claim petition was allowed in the absence of counter-affidavit filed by. the State, by virtue of an ex parte order which was set aside vide order dated 9. 2. 2005, passed in Writ Petition No. 5424 (S/b) of 1996, remanding the matter to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh, after giving a clear finding on the point of limitation. The Tribunal found that the claim petition was barred by limitation and therefore, rejected the claim petition filed by the petitioner, vide its order dated 6. 8. 2007.
5. The High Court while remanding the matter vide its order dated 9. 2. 2005 specifically directed that the claim petition shall be decided after giving a clear finding on the question of limitation. It was in pursuance of the directive aforesaid, the claim petition has been found to be barred by limitation, and has been rejected by the Tribunal.
6. The petitioner does not dispute that the termination order was issued on 9th December, 1985 and that he was served with the order of termination and was having knowledge of the same. He however, says that he did make certain representations to the Chief Minister and to the Estate Officer, which remained pending, and that in the year 1990 he was informed by the local officers, that the matter has been forwarded to the higher authority. The petitioner again made representation in the year 1991-1992 to the Estate Officer and thereafter he approached the Tribunal. Argument is that since the representations were not decided, which he was continuously making since 1986 to 1992, therefore, the petition cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
7. The alternative argument
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
