Point of Law: Cadre or ex-cadre posts - When there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. Law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of representation.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The claim petition bearing No. 486 of 2019 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The petitioner was initially appointed under the opposite parties vide order dated 29.07.1982 as Dispatcher in the pay-scale of Rs. 200-5-250-EB-6-260-EB-8-320 on temporary basis. His services were terminated without any notice. The petitioner has continued as Dispatcher w.e.f. the date of his joining in the year 1982 itself.

3. During the course of argument, Sri. Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly informed the Court that in the year 1991, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 6965 of 1991, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.12.2012. This fact was not mentioned before the Tribunal nor has it been mentioned in the writ petition. Nevertheless, it has been brought to our notice by the counsel himself during arguments. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation on 07.09.2015, claiming entitlement to the post of Junior Clerk in the clerical cadre and seniority thereon with consequential benefits of promotion etc. This claim was apparently moved after 33 years of his appointment as Dispatcher. The petitioner was given the benefits of Dispatcher. The petitioner without disclosing the factum of having filed a writ petition before the High Court bearing no. 6965 of 1991, as noticed hereinabove filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal at Lucknow bearing no. 2053 of 2015, which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned opposite party to decide petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2015.

4. We have perused the said judgment dated 25.07.2017, though it is not under challenge before us, we are constrained to observe that the Tribunal did not delve into the question of limitation, which every court is bound to see irrespective of the fact as to whether objection has been raised or not by any opposite party. The claim petition was filed in the year 2015 seeking a declaration to treat him as substantively appointed clerk w.e.f. 29.07.1982. The cause of action, if at all, arose in the year 1982, but, the Tribunal did not go into this question, instead, it simply passed an order for disposal of petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2015. Now in pursuance thereof on 18.07.2018, an order was passed by the Chief Conservator of forest/Director, Rajya Anusandhan Sansthan, U.P. Kanpur rejecting the claim of the petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner by means of writ petition before this Court bearing no. 1538 (SS) of 2019, as is mentioned in the judgment of the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 21.01.2019 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner thereafter filed the abovementioned claim petition bearing no. 486 of 2019 before the Tribunal at Lucknow. The claim petition has been declined by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation. Relevant extract of the judgment are quoted herein-below:

“14. It is clear that the petitioner was appointed as Dispatcher in the Forest department in 1982. It was in compliance of the Government order dated 08.06.1982, whereby a list of visually handicapped persons was circulated amongst various department for appointment in available vacancies forthwith. The letter specifies the posts against which identified persons were directed to be appointed. However, it did not specifically mention whether they were to be appointed against cadre or ex-cadre posts. The petitioner was appointed in place of Sri. Dorji, who too was included in the list circulated by the Government vide its G.O dated 8.6.1982.

15. As the Government order did not clearly state whether the appointment was to be made on cadre or ex-cadre posts, the choice was left to the departments to appoint the nominated persons in available departmental vacancies. The fact that the petitioner was appointed against a va