A claim petition under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act is subject to strict limitations; failure to comply with these results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1 . By means of this petition, the petitioner-Sub Inspector of Police has challenged an order dated 23.5.2025 passed in Claim Petition No. 1767 of 2024 on the ground that the claim petition was barred by limitation.

2. Before proceeding further, we may point out that limitation for filing a reference/claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal is governed by the law of limitation as applicable to suits, meaning-thereby there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing a reference or claim petition. Limitation prescribed is one year as per Section 4 of U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act of 1976'). In this very context, there are judicial pronouncements of this Court recent one being reported in 2024 (8) ADJ 788 ( State of U.P. Vs. Birendra Bahadur Singh ) and an earlier judgment reported in 2015 4 AWC 4130 All ( State of U.P. and others Vs. Vivekanand Singh and others )

3. Now, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was visited with a minor punishment of censure vide an order passed on 26.8.2020 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Against this punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Police under Section 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Rules of 1991'), which was rejected on merits on 5.3.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 23 of the Rules of 1991 before the Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar. The said revision was filed on 8.12.2023 whereas the limitation for preferring the same is prescribed in Rules 23 of the Rules of 1991 as three month from the date of rejection of appeal, therefore, the revisional authority i.e. the Commissioner of Police, who is equivalent to an Additional Director General of Police, dismissed the revision vide order dated 21.12.2023 on the point of limitation itself without entering into the merits of the revision.

4. Against the revisional order dated 21.12.2023, the petitioner preferred a revision to the State Government relying upon Section 23 (1) (c) of the Rules of 1991 on 8.2.2024. This revision was not decided, therefore, the petitioner filed a reference/claim petition before U.P. Public Services Tribunal at Lucknow bearing Claim Petition No. 162 of 2024, which was decided on 29.1.2024 in the following terms:-

"1- This claim petition has been filed under Section 4 of the U.P Public Service Tribunal, Act, 1976 for following relief as prayed in Para-8 of the Claim Petition:-

(1) To direct the opposite party No. 1 to decide the representation dated 3.1.2024 of the petitioner under rule-23(C) of U.P Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

2-The learned counsel for petitioner submit that petitioner has filed a representetion dated 03.01.2024 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the claim petitioner before Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, (Home), Lok Bhawan, Lucknow under Rule 23(C) of U.P. Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991, which is pending for decision as yet.

3-Since matter is engaging attention of Opposite Party No. 1 (Principal Secretary. (Home), Lok Bhawan, Lucknow I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. Consequently, after hearing Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Presenting Officer for Opposite Parties, 1 disposed of this claim petition at admission stage directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to take a decision on petitioner's representation dated 03.01.2024 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the claim petition by passing speaking and reasone