PRADEEP KANT, K. S. RAKHRA, JJ.

( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S. K. Tewari and Sri Navneet Agarwal for the state.

( 2 ) THIS is part-heard matter of this Bench since before and, therefore, it has been listed today before this Bench for hearing.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, who was Lekhpal in Tehsil Amethi, district Sultanpur, was dismissed from service after departmental inquiry vide order dated 15. 6. 1987. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal on 30. 6. 1987. The appeal, according to the petitioner, remained pending for considerable period and despite repeated reminders being made, the appellate authority (District Magistrate)did not pass any order on the appeal. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred a claim petition under Section 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) in the year 2000. In the claim petition, the petitioner averred that he filed the statutory appeal on 30. 6. 1987, which was registered in the office of the District Magistrate on 2. 7. 1987 but the same has yet not been decided.

( 4 ) IT appears that the State took a defence that the claim petition was barred by limitation, which was one year at the relevant time. The Tribunal vide order dated 14. 3. 2002, dismissed the claim petition at the admission stage.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that the dismissal order was dated 15. 6. 1987 ; the appeal was filed on 30. 6. 1987 ; reminders were sent up to 21. 8. 2000 and legal notice of 30 days was given on 30. 6. 2000 and, according to the petitioner, all the aforesaid matters are still pending for which there is no response by appellate authority. The State, however, denied the contentions/allegations. The Tribunal rejected the claim petition holding that even if the petitioner has filed the appeal on 30. 6. 1987, the limitation expired after twelve months while the petitioners alleged reminder dated 21. 8. 2000 itself is after thirteen years, The case law, cited by the petitioner, Mahendra Pratap Rai v. State of U. P. and Ors. 1986 (4) LCD 209, was not even properly considered by the Tribunal.

( 6 ) THE reasoning given by the Tribunal is that under Section 4 of the Act, period of limitation of filing a claim petition cannot be extended under Section 5 of Limitation Act as the claim petition is like a civil suit for which the period of limitation prescribed under Section 5 of the U. P. Public services (Tribunal) Act is one year and in computing the period of limitation the period spent in awaiting the result of representation or appeal or revision in accordance with rules shall be excluded.

( 7 ) RELYING on Section 4 (6) of the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2000, the Tribunal held that where no final order is made on appeal or representation within six months, a written notice by registered post is to be sent to the authority concerned and if the order is not passed within one month of service of such notice, the public servant shall be deemed to have availed of all the departmental remedies available to him and then he can come to the Tribunal for reference under Section 4 (1) of the Act, even though the appeal or revision has not been decided.

( 8 ) THE Tribunal has observed that in case of delay there should be satisfactory explanation for condoning the delay. The petitioners claim petition was rejected after holding that according to the petitioner, reminders were sent continuously for which no proof has been filed ; the claim petition has been filed highly time barred and the first reminder dated 21. 8. 2000 was after a gap of 13 years from the date of filing the appeal. In regard to the case law Mahendra Pratap Rai v. State of U. P. and Ors. 1986 (4) LCD 209, the Tribunal said that in the aforesaid case the tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appeals were filed beyond time, i. e. , after about ten months whereas in the instant case the petitioners contention is that the appeal was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document