Back
RAJAN ROY, RAVI NATH TILHARI
Arun Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
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 promot
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 li....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods and upheld the dismissal of the claim petition based on the statutory obligation under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
It is well settled that in order to raise the plea that the claim petition is within the period of limitation and not barred by it, it must be shown that the remedy been followed or availed of was a ....
Point of Law : Promotions made prior to enforcement of such Rules were not to be affected by 1999 Rules as such Rules were to operate prospectively and not retrospectively.
The Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to being filed after the limitation period. On merits, the court found that the promotion of Sri G.K. Venkoba was granted under the reservation....
The court established that limitation for filing claims under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 does not apply when no final order has been issued in the related appeal or representation.
Belated challenge to circulated seniority list after 10+ years dismissed on delay, laches and acquiescence; settled seniority not to be unsettled without explanation, protecting third-party rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
