JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Neerav Chitravanshi Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner - Power Corporation, Ms. Renu Mishra Advocate, the learned Counsel for the opposite party, and Sri Anand Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. has approached this court challenging the judgment and order dated 6.2.2018 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition No. 1624 of 2016, which was filed by the opposite party no. 2, was allowed.

3. The aforesaid claim petition had been filed by the opposite party no. 2 challenging an order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the Chairman, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd./opp. party no. 2, whereby the punishment of Censure entry and stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the respondent no. 2.

4. On 12.6.2006 the respondent no.2 had submitted a representation to the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. against the punishment order dated 5.5.2006 and the said representation was treated as an appeal and the same was also rejected by means of an order dated 22.5.2008. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 submitted two representations dated 17.11.2008 and 30.3.2016 against the aforesaid orders, which were disposed of by means of an order dated 6.6.2016 stating that the appeal filed by the respondent no. 2 had already been rejected by means of an order dated 22.5.2008 and, therefore, no action was warranted on his representation dated 17.11.2008 or 30.3.2016.

5. The respondent no.2 had filed the claim petition challenging all the aforesaid orders dated 5.5.2006 imposing punishment of Censure entry and stoppage of annual increments, order dated 22.5.2008 rejecting his appeal and the order dated 6.6.2016 on his representation, by filing Claim Petition No. 1624 of 2016 before the Tribunal.

6. The petitioner- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., which was an opposite party in the claim-petition, opposed the claim-petition on the preliminary ground that the punishment order was passed on 5.5.2006 and the claim-petition was barred by the period of limitation provided in section 5 of the U.P. State Public (Tribunals) Act.

7. The Tribunal held that the respondent no. 2 had challenged the latest order dated 6.6.2016 and the claim-petition had been filed on 16.8.2016, which was admitted on 27.10.2016 and in such circumstances there was hardly any need to re-open the question. Thus, apparently the plea of limitation was not gone into by the Tribunal for the mere reason that the claim petition had been admitted.

8. Section 5 (1) (b) of the State Public Service Tribunal Act provides as follows: -

"(b) The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall mutatis mutandis apply to reference under section 4 as if a reference were a suit filed in civil court so, however, that:-

(i) Notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule 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 the 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 conditions 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"

9. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory mandate it is apparent that the period of limitation for filing a claim-petition is one year and in computing the period of limitation, the period on which the employee makes a representation or prefers an appeal, revision or any other petition in accordance with the Rules or orders regulating his conditions of service and ending with the date on which such Public Servant has knowledge of the fi