Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal") primarily on the ground that claim petition was suffering from laches, therefore, the same could not be entertained by the Tribunal. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Dr. Neeraj Kumari Mishra Deo and another, [ 2011 (29) LCD 668 ].

3. In order to appreciate the argument of the counsel for the petitioner, we have to advert to the facts on record and the facts on record are that the opposite party was awarded selection grade in the year 1980 and an order of recovery from the opposite party was passed in the year 1998. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner never gave option for award of selection grade after the Second Pay Commission. The selection grade had already accrued to the opposite party in the year 1980 on the basis of the Service Rules as provided under the Rules was that a Junior Engineer, who c