By the Court.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajnish Kumar and perused the impugned order passed by the State Public Services Tribunal.

2. The Tribunal in the claim petition preferred by the respondent, challenging his supersession on the post of Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax in the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 15.1.2010, accepted the plea of the respondent that the adverse entry for the year 2001-02 could not have been treated as adverse for considering promotion or crossing of efficiency bar and other service benefits in view of Rule 5 of the U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Adverse Annual Confidential Reports & Allied Matters) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1995) and consequently, directed that while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors, the adverse remarks for the year 2001-02 shall not be treated as adverse.

3. The sole ground which has been urged by the counsel for the State is that the claim petition itself was highly barred by limitation and, therefore, Tribunal committed manifest error in entertaining such a delayed petition and issuing the aforesaid direction.

4. In support of the aforesaid plea, it has been urged that the adverse entry related to the year 2001-02, which was communicated to the petitioner in the year 2003 itself and, therefore, his grievance against the adverse entry could have been brought before the Tribunal only within the time of limitation from the date of communication of the said entry on which the cause of action first accrued but the petitioner waited for seven long years and approached the Tribunal only in the year 2010, which makes the petition barred by limitation.

5. The entry for the year 2001-02 was in two parts; one was for the period commencing from 3.7.2011 to 12.11.2001 and the other was for the period 15.11.2001 to 31.3.2002. The entry for the period 15.11.2001 to 31.3.2002 is adverse as the petitioner was assessed as ‘poor’ with certain adverse remarks. This entry was finalised by the appointing authority on 15.3.2003. This entry was communicated to the petitioner on 15.5.2003 i.e. after expiry of more than 45 days, as prescribed under Rule (1) of the Rules of 1995. The entry for the period 3.7.2011 to 12.11.2001 was assessed as ‘Uttam’ by the reporting authority but the reviewing authority downgraded it to ‘achchha’, without recording any reason. Representation was made with respect to this downgrading on 22.5.2003, which was not disposed of, though the State denies of receiving any such representation.

6. According to the State, representation was made on 20.11.2009 i.e. much beyond the prescribed period of limitation under the rules and the same was rejected on 23.11.2009, holding it to be inadmissible, which order has also not been challenged.

7. Counsel for the State has also relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, wherein the Apex Court in Para 15, observed as under:

“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.”

8. The plea, therefore, is that the issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original c