Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2759
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Satyendra Singh Chauhan, Vishnu Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Lalji Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lucknow and Ors. - Respondent
Writ petition No. 90 (S/B) of 2011
Decided On : 26-03-2014
For the Petitioner: S.P. Mishra,Abou Sofian Usmani,Manish Mishra,Namit Sharma
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
The importance of considering grounds for limitation and providing a reasoned order in accordance with the law.
Headnote:
Limitation - U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 - Section 5 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal challenging the dismissal of his appeal as barred by limitation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as barred by limitation without considering the grounds of the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition without considering the grounds for limitation was unjust. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a reasoned order.
Issues: The main issue was the dismissal of the claim petition as barred by limitation without proper consideration of the grounds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal was obligated to consider the grounds for limitation and provide a reasoned order. It also emphasized the importance of evaluating the order of the appellate authority in light of the petitioner's plea for condoning the delay.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a reasoned order within a specified period.
Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. –
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought following reliefs: -
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.8.2009 passed by opposite party no. 1, U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') contained as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.8.1996 and 6.1.1997 both passed by the opposite party no. 3 and order dated 24.3.2009 passed by opposite party no. 2 with all consequential benefits.
iii)To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to create any impediment in to the clean and smooth service route/promotion of the petitioner on the basis of impugned orders dated 17.8.1996 and 6.1.1997 passed by opposite party no. 3 and 24.3.2009 passed by opposite party no. 2 in the interest of justice.
2. The Tribunal vide order impugned dated 13.8.2009 dismissed the Claim Petition bearing no. 1267 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner as barred by limitation.
3. Brief facts for deciding this petition are that petitioner Lalji Tiwari was posted as Deputy Excise Inspector in Sugar Mill, Laxmiganj, Padrauna, District Deoria (Now District Kushinagar). He was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.11.1995. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet was issued to him. After conclusion of the departmental inquiry the petitioner was punished under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 vide order dated 17.8.1996 by opposite party no. 2 withholding four permanent increments with cumulative effect. Against the order of punishment petitioner preferred a representation before opposite party no. 3, which was rejected vide order dated 6.1.1997. Against the order of punishment dated 17.8.1996 the petitioner filed statutory appeal before opposite party no. 2 on 13.10.2008, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.3.2009 as barred by time observing that it has been filed after 12 years from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 13.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2009 and the order dated 6.1.1997 the petitioner preferred claim petition no. 1267 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed as barred by limitation on 13.8.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that limitation prescribed for preferring the claim petition under section 5 of U.P Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is one year. He drew the attention of this court towards sub clause (1) (b) (i) (ii) of section 5 of of U.P Public Services ( Tribunal) Act, which are reproduced as under: -
"(i) notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed in the scheduled to the said Act, the period of limitation for such reference shall be one year.
(ii) in computing the period of limitation the period beginning with the date on which a public servant makes a representation or prefers an appeal, revision or any other petition (not being a memorial to the Governor), in accordance with the rules or orders regulating his condition of service and ending with the date on which such public servant has knowledge of the final order passed on such representation, appeal, revision or petition, as the case may be, shall be excluded."
6. The order impugned passed by the Tribunal on 13.8.2009 reads as under: -
"List revised. Still none is present for the petitioner.
`Office has raised an objection that the petition is barred by limitation.
On perusal of the record, we also find that the claim petition is highly bared by limitation. It is dismissed as barred by limitation."
7. From the perusal of the said order, it appe
