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.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

By means of this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 07.01.2022, passed by learned Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal, at Dehradun (in short, “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.18/DB/2001, titled, “Rajendra Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others”, by which the said Claim Petition has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee on 02.08.1989 in Trade Tax Department, Uttar Pradesh. After creation of State of Uttarakhand, he had given his option for the State of Uttar Pradesh cadre. On 23.10.2001, the list of employees, allotted to the State of Uttarakhand cadre, was released. The petitioner’s name was not included in the said list. In the month of March, 2003, petitioner sent his application for changing his State cadre from Uttar Pradesh, to State of Uttarakhand.

3. In the State of Uttarakhand, DPC was conducted for promotion of the employees of Class IV to Class III for the year 2004-2005. Vide letter No.836, dated 09.11.2006, the State of Uttar Pradesh transferred the service of the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand. In the process of promotion for the year 2007-2008, the petitioner did not give his typing test. He communicated that he did not know typing. He was promoted in the year 2012-2013, giving him six months period to improve his typing speed. He was finally promoted on 23.01.2013. He was promoted from the date of the order. He was confirmed in service vide Order dated 25.07.2015 w.e.f. 22.01.2015. He made a number of representations to respondent no.2 for being notionally promoted to the post of Junior Assistant from the date his juniors were promoted i.e. since the year, 2005. Office Memorandum dated 30.03.2011, Office Memorandum dated 09.10.2013, Office Memorandum dated 29.03.2014 and Office Memorandum dated 30.11.2015 were passed on the representations of the petitioner, rejecting the same. Petitioner’s representation dated 24.10.2019 was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the Tribunal with the following reliefs :-

“(i) To direct the respondents to issue order or direction quashing the rejection orders dated 30.03.2011, 09.10.2013, 29.03.2014, 30.11.2015 and 24.10.2019.

(ii) To direct the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner w.e.f. 03.02.2005 i.e. the date when his juniors were promoted to the post of Junior Assistant/Clerk along with consequential benefits.

(iii) To give any other relief fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) To give cost to the petitioner.”

4. Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has continued cause of action since 03.02.2005, therefore his Claim Petition cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, has supported the impugned judgment.

6. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) (in short, “the Act, 1976”) lays down its own period of limitation for the claim petition brought under it, which reads as under :-

“(b) The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) shall mutatis mutandis apply to reference under Section 4 as if a reference where 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