Syed Rasheed Jamal Rasheedi And Another vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

5. As appellants have challenged the ex-parte judgment dated 08.04.2015 on the grounds of bar of limitation, we proceed to consider the same.

6. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Shri Syed Rasheed Jamal Rasheedi (now dead) [hereinafter referred to as 'Claimant'] was initially appointed on

31.08.1971 on the post of Assistant Engineer in the Department of Irrigation, Government of U.P. He was subsequently promoted on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 31.08.1988 and later on was promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer w.e.f 02.11.2001. Ultimately, he was promoted on the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II, vide order dated 30.06.2007 and thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on

31.07.2007.

7. The Government of U.P. had issued a Government Order on 07.07.1990, wherein it has been provided the Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical), on completion of 18 years of regular and satisfactory service, would be entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre-revised) as personal pay with a further stipulation that those Assistant Engineers, who had been promoted on the post of Executive Engineer and had completed 16 years of regular and satisfactory service and have not been promoted on the higher post, would be entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre- revised) as personal pay.

8. The claimant on completion of 18 years of service, was allowed the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre-revised) as personal pay w.e.f. 31.08.1989.

9. Since the claimant, prior to completion of 18 years of service, was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 31.08.1988 and he also completed 16 years of regular and satisfactory service, therefore, in view of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 07.07.1990, he was entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre-revised) w.e.f. 31.08.1988 but actually he was given the said pay scale w.e.f. 31.08.1989 i.e. with the 3 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 delay of about one year.

10. Since one Shri Krishna Mohan Agarwal, who was junior to the claimant, was given pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- with effect from the date of his promotion on the post of Executive Engineer, as by that date he completed 16 years of regular and satisfactory service and similar was the case of claimant but he was given the said pay scale with the delay of almost one year, he filed Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988 (Shri Syed Rasheed Jamal Rasheedi versus State of U.P. and another) and the learned Tribunal had been pleased to allow the said claim petition vide judgment and order dated

14.02.1995, whereby it was provided that the claimant therein shall be deemed to have been promoted on the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the due date or with effect from the date 31.08.1988, when juniors to him were promoted with all consequential benefits with a further direction to consider the case of the claimant for grant of personal pay scale with effect from the date it was due to him, as per rules.

11. The Government of U.P. challenged the judgement and order dated

14.02.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, by filing Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 (State of U.P. versus Shri Syed Rasheed Jamal Rasheedi and another). Since no interim order was passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the petitioner herein complied with the judgement and order of 14.02.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal by passing the order dated 05.08.1996, whereby the claimant was granted notional promotion on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f.

31.08.1988 but in Paragraph No. 2 of the said order, it was provided that the pay of claimant on the post of Executive Engineer shall be fixed w.e.f.

31.08.1988 on notional basis but actual financial benefits shall be given to him with effect from the date he was actually promoted on the post of Executive Engineer.

12. Since the claimant was not satisfied with the order dated 05.08.1996, he filed a Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995, which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.1997, wherein finding had been recorded that the judgement and order dated 14.02.1995 had been complied with.

13. Since the judgement and order dated 14.02.1995 passed in Claim Petition 4 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 No. 403/F/IV/1988 was complied with, this Court had been pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 vide order dated

27.03.2012. After dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 by this Court, the claimant preferred representations on 24.07.2012 and

16.8.2012, whereby he raised his demand for payment of those financial benefits, which were denied to him under Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated

05.08.1996. He also filed another contempt petition before the learned Tribunal bearing Contempt Petition No. 67 of 2012, alleging therein that the judgement and order dated 14.02.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, has not been complied with but subsequently learned counsel appearing on his behalf made a prayer that the contempt petition may be disposed of with liberty to him to file a fresh reference application and on that request the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to the claimant to file reference application.

14. In the aforesaid factual background, the claimant filed Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 and thereby he challenged the provisions contained in Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 05.08.1996 and prayed that the personal pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre-revised) be sanctioned to him w.e.f.

31.08.1988 and he may be paid all consequential financial benefits for the period from 31.08.1988 to 04.08.1996 along with interest and consequential pay revisions.

15. The petitioner herein, for certain reasons could not file written statement in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, therefore, the learned Tribunal passed an order for proceeding in the matter ex-parte and ultimately, the claim petition had been decided by the learned Tribunal vide an ex-parte order dated

08.04.2015.

16. The petitioner herein filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015 in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 but the said application had been rejected by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated

01.02.2018, on the ground that the petitioner herein was fully aware about the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 and in spite of various opportunities having been granted, written statement was not filed, therefore, there is no reason to recall the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by 5 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 the State of U.P., challenging therein the judgment and order dated

08.04.2015, passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, and the order dated 01.02.2018, whereby the application for recall of ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015 had been rejected.

18. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, was duly complied with by passing an order dated 05.08.1996 and the contempt petition filed by the claimant, bearing Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.1997, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to allow the claim petition challenging Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 05.09.1996 vide judgment and order 08.04.2015, as the said claim petition was filed in the year 2013 that is almost about 17 years from the date of passing of the order dated 15.08.1996 and the limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition before the learned Tribunal is only one year from the date of passing of the order under challenge in the claim petition.

19. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel, has vehemently argued that Section 5 (1) (b) (i) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1976') categorically provides that the period of limitation for filing reference/claim petition before the learned Tribunal shall be one year, whereas it is apparent from the face of the record that the learned Tribunal had entertained the Claim Petition No 25 of 2013, wherein the order dated 05.08.1996 was under challenge though the said claim petition was filed after almost 17 years of the date of passing of the said order, as such the claim petition itself was barred by limitation and ought to have been rejected, at the very initial stage.

20. It has further been argued that it is well-settled proposition of law that once a case is filed before any court, it is obligatory on the said court to ascertain as to whether the case has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the statute and the court is having jurisdiction to hear the said case, even if the said issue have not been raised by the party concerned but in the case in hand, the learned Tribunal had accepted the claim petition, which was filed in the year 2013, challenging the order passed on

05.08.1996, as such the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015, passed by the 6 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, on its face is unsustainable in the eyes of the law. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an application was filed for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015, in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the fact that the claim petition itself was barred by period of limitation, had rejected the said application vide order dated 01.02.2018, which on its face is unsustainable.

21. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that since the claim petition itself was barred by period of limitation provided under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1976, the impugned orders dated 08.04.2015 and 01.02.2018, on their face, are unsustainable, therefore, are liable to be quashed by this Court and the writ petition filed by the State is liable to be allowed.

22. Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, was not complied with and an absolutely illegal order was passed on 05.08.1996 in alleged compliance of the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 and since the writ petition filed by the State challenging the order dated 14.02.1995 remained pending before the High Court and was dismissed as infructuous on 27.03.2012, as such the claimant filed representations before the State on 24.07.2012 and 16.08.2012 and thereafter, he filed Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, therefore, the said claim petition was well within the period of limitation of one year from the date of the aforesaid representations, as such it is patently manifest that the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was not time-barred and accordingly, the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, which are impugned in this writ petition, are perfectly justified.

23. It has further been submitted that after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 vide order dated 27.03.2012, the claimant again filed a Contempt Petition No. 67 of 2012, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 02.01.2013, whereby liberty was granted for filing a fresh reference application, as such the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the 7 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 Act of 1976.

24. Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that Section 5(1)(b)(ii) categorically provides that if any representation has been filed against an order and that representation remains pending, the claim petition filed against the said order shall be treated to have been filed well within the period of limitation of one year, therefore, since against the order dated 05.05.1996, representations were filed on 24.07.2012 and 16.8.2012, the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was well within the period of limitation of one year prescribed under section 5(1)(b)(i) of the 1976 Act.

25. Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that it is apparent from the face of record that the claimant was entitled for the benefits, which have been granted by the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 08.04.2015 passed in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 but same were denied by stipulations made in Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 05.08.1996 and since writ petition filed by the State remained pending before this Court and ultimately was dismissed on

27.03.2012, the representations were made and Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was filed, therefore, it is apparent that the claim petition was well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1976.

26. Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has thus concluded his arguments by submitting that the orders dated 08.04.2015 and 01.02.2018, impugned in this writ petition, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the writ petition filed by the State is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

27. We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was filed before the learned Tribunal, challenging therein the provisions made in Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 05.08.1996 and for consequential reliefs.

28. We find that initially a Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988 was filed and was decided vide judgment and order dated 14.02.1995. The judgment and order dated 14.02.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal was challenged by 8 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 the State of U.P. by filing Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 before this Court and the said writ petition remained pending and was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2012 by holding that the writ petition itself has become infructuous. During pendency of Writ Petition No. 5668 (S/S) of 1996, the State Government complied with the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995, passed in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, by passing an order on

05.08.1996. The Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 for alleged non- compliance of the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995 was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order 17.12.1997, recording therein that the order dated 14.02.1995 had been complied with.

29. It is noteworthy that the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995 passed in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, was complied with by the State by passing an order on 05.08.1996 and that compliance was accepted by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.1997. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the order dated 05.08.1996 attained finality on dismissal of the contempt petition on 17.12.1997. The Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996, filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995, was also dismissed on 27.03.2012 on the ground that the judgment and order dated

14.02.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal had already been complied with vide order dated 05.08.1996, as such the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

30. The period of limitation for filing a reference application/claim petition before the learned U.P. Public Services Tribunal is prescribed under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act of 1976, 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 9 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 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: Provided that any reference for which the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 is more than one year, a reference under Section 4 may be made within the period prescribed by that Act, or within one year next after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) (Amendment) Act, 1985 whichever period expires earlier: Provided further that nothing in this clause as substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) (Amendment) Act, 1985, shall affect any reference made before and pending at the commencement of the said Act."

31. Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1976 categorically provides that the period of limitation for filing a reference application/claim petition shall be one year, which in categorical terms means that the claim petition must be filed within a period of one year from the date of passing of the order which is under challenge in the claim petition. Section 5(1)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1976 provides that if the government servant prefers a representation in accordance with the rules or orders regulating his conditions of service, the period taken by the competent authority in deciding the said representation shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation of one year in filing the claim petition.

32. On considering the facts of the present case vis-a-vis the provisions made in the Act of 1976 in respect of the period of limitation, it is apparent on the face of record that the order under challenge in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was passed way back on 05.08.1996. The said order dated

05.08.1996 was passed in purported compliance of the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 passed in Claim Petition 403/F/IV/1988 and the contempt petition filed in the matter bearing Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.1997, recording therein that the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 had been complied with. Though the writ petition filed by the State Government 10 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 challenging the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 bearing Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 remained pending before this Court and was dismissed as infructuous on 27.03.2024 but that period of pendency of the writ petition before this Court is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for filing a claim petition before the learned Tribunal challenging the order dated 05.08.1996 by the respondent.

33. We are of the view that the order dated 05.08.1996 attained finality on dismissal of the Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 17.12.1997, therefore, if the order dated 05.08.1996 was required to be challenged, the claim petition should have been filed within a period of one year from the date of the order and at the most, it could have been filed within a period of one year from the date of dismissal of the Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 i.e. from 17.12.1997.

34. On dismissal of the Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 vide order dated

17.12.1997, the Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 became inconsequential and therefore, there was no occasion for the claimant to wait for disposal of the said writ petition for making a representations to the State Government and then file the claim petition in the year 2013, challenging therein the order dated 05.08.1996. So far as the representations 24.07.2012 and 16.8.2012 are concerned, we are of the view that the said representations have no relevance in computing the period of limitation of Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, as the said representations have not been filed under any rule or order regulating conditions of service of the government servant concerned. The period of limitation for filing claim petition against the order dated 05.08.1996 stood expired way back on 05.08.1997, therefore, the said representations, which were not in terms of any rule or conditions of service, in no way are helpful to the claimant for justifying the period of limitation for filing claim petition. We may in this regard refer to the decision by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Versus Vivekanand Singh and another, Service Bench No. 444 of 2015, wherein the law on the subject has been elucidated.

35. Having considered the overall facts and the circumstance of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, where order dated 05.08.1996 was under challenge, was barred by period of 11 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 limitation prescribed under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1976, therefore, the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015 passed in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, on its face, is unsustainable.

36. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed in part and the claim petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. December 8, 2025 Satish (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

5. As appellants have challenged the ex-parte judgment dated 08.04.2015 on the grounds of bar of limitation, we proceed to consider the same.

6. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Shri Syed Rasheed Jamal Rasheedi (now dead) [hereinafter referred to as 'Claimant'] was initially appointed on

31.08.1971 on the post of Assistant Engineer in the Department of Irrigation, Government of U.P. He was subsequently promoted on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 31.08.1988 and later on was promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer w.e.f 02.11.2001. Ultimately, he was promoted on the post of Chief Engineer, Level-II, vide order dated 30.06.2007 and thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on

31.07.2007.

7. The Government of U.P. had issued a Government Order on 07.07.1990, wherein it has been provided the Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical), on completion of 18 years of regular and satisfactory service, would be entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre-revised) as personal pay with a further stipulation that those Assistant Engineers, who had been promoted on the post of Executive Engineer and had completed 16 years of regular and satisfactory service and have not been promoted on the higher post, would be entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre- revised) as personal pay.

8. The claimant on completion of 18 years of service, was allowed the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre-revised) as personal pay w.e.f. 31.08.1989.

9. Since the claimant, prior to completion of 18 years of service, was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f. 31.08.1988 and he also completed 16 years of regular and satisfactory service, therefore, in view of the provisions made in the Government Order dated 07.07.1990, he was entitled for the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre-revised) w.e.f. 31.08.1988 but actually he was given the said pay scale w.e.f. 31.08.1989 i.e. with the 3 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 delay of about one year.

10. Since one Shri Krishna Mohan Agarwal, who was junior to the claimant, was given pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- with effect from the date of his promotion on the post of Executive Engineer, as by that date he completed 16 years of regular and satisfactory service and similar was the case of claimant but he was given the said pay scale with the delay of almost one year, he filed Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988 (Shri Syed Rasheed Jamal Rasheedi versus State of U.P. and another) and the learned Tribunal had been pleased to allow the said claim petition vide judgment and order dated

14.02.1995, whereby it was provided that the claimant therein shall be deemed to have been promoted on the post of Executive Engineer with effect from the due date or with effect from the date 31.08.1988, when juniors to him were promoted with all consequential benefits with a further direction to consider the case of the claimant for grant of personal pay scale with effect from the date it was due to him, as per rules.

11. The Government of U.P. challenged the judgement and order dated

14.02.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, by filing Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 (State of U.P. versus Shri Syed Rasheed Jamal Rasheedi and another). Since no interim order was passed by this Court in the said writ petition, the petitioner herein complied with the judgement and order of 14.02.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal by passing the order dated 05.08.1996, whereby the claimant was granted notional promotion on the post of Executive Engineer w.e.f.

31.08.1988 but in Paragraph No. 2 of the said order, it was provided that the pay of claimant on the post of Executive Engineer shall be fixed w.e.f.

31.08.1988 on notional basis but actual financial benefits shall be given to him with effect from the date he was actually promoted on the post of Executive Engineer.

12. Since the claimant was not satisfied with the order dated 05.08.1996, he filed a Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995, which was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.1997, wherein finding had been recorded that the judgement and order dated 14.02.1995 had been complied with.

13. Since the judgement and order dated 14.02.1995 passed in Claim Petition 4 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 No. 403/F/IV/1988 was complied with, this Court had been pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 vide order dated

27.03.2012. After dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 by this Court, the claimant preferred representations on 24.07.2012 and

16.8.2012, whereby he raised his demand for payment of those financial benefits, which were denied to him under Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated

05.08.1996. He also filed another contempt petition before the learned Tribunal bearing Contempt Petition No. 67 of 2012, alleging therein that the judgement and order dated 14.02.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, has not been complied with but subsequently learned counsel appearing on his behalf made a prayer that the contempt petition may be disposed of with liberty to him to file a fresh reference application and on that request the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to the claimant to file reference application.

14. In the aforesaid factual background, the claimant filed Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 and thereby he challenged the provisions contained in Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 05.08.1996 and prayed that the personal pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/- (pre-revised) be sanctioned to him w.e.f.

31.08.1988 and he may be paid all consequential financial benefits for the period from 31.08.1988 to 04.08.1996 along with interest and consequential pay revisions.

15. The petitioner herein, for certain reasons could not file written statement in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, therefore, the learned Tribunal passed an order for proceeding in the matter ex-parte and ultimately, the claim petition had been decided by the learned Tribunal vide an ex-parte order dated

08.04.2015.

16. The petitioner herein filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015 in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 but the said application had been rejected by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated

01.02.2018, on the ground that the petitioner herein was fully aware about the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 and in spite of various opportunities having been granted, written statement was not filed, therefore, there is no reason to recall the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed by 5 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 the State of U.P., challenging therein the judgment and order dated

08.04.2015, passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, and the order dated 01.02.2018, whereby the application for recall of ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015 had been rejected.

18. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, was duly complied with by passing an order dated 05.08.1996 and the contempt petition filed by the claimant, bearing Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.1997, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal to allow the claim petition challenging Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 05.09.1996 vide judgment and order 08.04.2015, as the said claim petition was filed in the year 2013 that is almost about 17 years from the date of passing of the order dated 15.08.1996 and the limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition before the learned Tribunal is only one year from the date of passing of the order under challenge in the claim petition.

19. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel, has vehemently argued that Section 5 (1) (b) (i) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1976') categorically provides that the period of limitation for filing reference/claim petition before the learned Tribunal shall be one year, whereas it is apparent from the face of the record that the learned Tribunal had entertained the Claim Petition No 25 of 2013, wherein the order dated 05.08.1996 was under challenge though the said claim petition was filed after almost 17 years of the date of passing of the said order, as such the claim petition itself was barred by limitation and ought to have been rejected, at the very initial stage.

20. It has further been argued that it is well-settled proposition of law that once a case is filed before any court, it is obligatory on the said court to ascertain as to whether the case has been filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the statute and the court is having jurisdiction to hear the said case, even if the said issue have not been raised by the party concerned but in the case in hand, the learned Tribunal had accepted the claim petition, which was filed in the year 2013, challenging the order passed on

05.08.1996, as such the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015, passed by the 6 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, on its face is unsustainable in the eyes of the law. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an application was filed for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015, in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the fact that the claim petition itself was barred by period of limitation, had rejected the said application vide order dated 01.02.2018, which on its face is unsustainable.

21. Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that since the claim petition itself was barred by period of limitation provided under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1976, the impugned orders dated 08.04.2015 and 01.02.2018, on their face, are unsustainable, therefore, are liable to be quashed by this Court and the writ petition filed by the State is liable to be allowed.

22. Mr. Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995, passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, was not complied with and an absolutely illegal order was passed on 05.08.1996 in alleged compliance of the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 and since the writ petition filed by the State challenging the order dated 14.02.1995 remained pending before the High Court and was dismissed as infructuous on 27.03.2012, as such the claimant filed representations before the State on 24.07.2012 and 16.08.2012 and thereafter, he filed Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, therefore, the said claim petition was well within the period of limitation of one year from the date of the aforesaid representations, as such it is patently manifest that the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was not time-barred and accordingly, the orders passed by the learned Tribunal, which are impugned in this writ petition, are perfectly justified.

23. It has further been submitted that after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 vide order dated 27.03.2012, the claimant again filed a Contempt Petition No. 67 of 2012, which was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 02.01.2013, whereby liberty was granted for filing a fresh reference application, as such the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the 7 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 Act of 1976.

24. Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that Section 5(1)(b)(ii) categorically provides that if any representation has been filed against an order and that representation remains pending, the claim petition filed against the said order shall be treated to have been filed well within the period of limitation of one year, therefore, since against the order dated 05.05.1996, representations were filed on 24.07.2012 and 16.8.2012, the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was well within the period of limitation of one year prescribed under section 5(1)(b)(i) of the 1976 Act.

25. Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that it is apparent from the face of record that the claimant was entitled for the benefits, which have been granted by the learned Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 08.04.2015 passed in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 but same were denied by stipulations made in Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 05.08.1996 and since writ petition filed by the State remained pending before this Court and ultimately was dismissed on

27.03.2012, the representations were made and Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was filed, therefore, it is apparent that the claim petition was well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1976.

26. Shri Shireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has thus concluded his arguments by submitting that the orders dated 08.04.2015 and 01.02.2018, impugned in this writ petition, do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the writ petition filed by the State is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

27. We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was filed before the learned Tribunal, challenging therein the provisions made in Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 05.08.1996 and for consequential reliefs.

28. We find that initially a Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988 was filed and was decided vide judgment and order dated 14.02.1995. The judgment and order dated 14.02.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal was challenged by 8 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 the State of U.P. by filing Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 before this Court and the said writ petition remained pending and was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2012 by holding that the writ petition itself has become infructuous. During pendency of Writ Petition No. 5668 (S/S) of 1996, the State Government complied with the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995, passed in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, by passing an order on

05.08.1996. The Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 for alleged non- compliance of the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995 was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order 17.12.1997, recording therein that the order dated 14.02.1995 had been complied with.

29. It is noteworthy that the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995 passed in Claim Petition No. 403/F/IV/1988, was complied with by the State by passing an order on 05.08.1996 and that compliance was accepted by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.1997. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the order dated 05.08.1996 attained finality on dismissal of the contempt petition on 17.12.1997. The Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996, filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 14.02.1995, was also dismissed on 27.03.2012 on the ground that the judgment and order dated

14.02.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal had already been complied with vide order dated 05.08.1996, as such the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

30. The period of limitation for filing a reference application/claim petition before the learned U.P. Public Services Tribunal is prescribed under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act of 1976, 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 9 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 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: Provided that any reference for which the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963 is more than one year, a reference under Section 4 may be made within the period prescribed by that Act, or within one year next after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) (Amendment) Act, 1985 whichever period expires earlier: Provided further that nothing in this clause as substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) (Amendment) Act, 1985, shall affect any reference made before and pending at the commencement of the said Act."

31. Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1976 categorically provides that the period of limitation for filing a reference application/claim petition shall be one year, which in categorical terms means that the claim petition must be filed within a period of one year from the date of passing of the order which is under challenge in the claim petition. Section 5(1)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1976 provides that if the government servant prefers a representation in accordance with the rules or orders regulating his conditions of service, the period taken by the competent authority in deciding the said representation shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation of one year in filing the claim petition.

32. On considering the facts of the present case vis-a-vis the provisions made in the Act of 1976 in respect of the period of limitation, it is apparent on the face of record that the order under challenge in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 was passed way back on 05.08.1996. The said order dated

05.08.1996 was passed in purported compliance of the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 passed in Claim Petition 403/F/IV/1988 and the contempt petition filed in the matter bearing Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 was also dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 17.12.1997, recording therein that the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 had been complied with. Though the writ petition filed by the State Government 10 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 challenging the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995 bearing Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 remained pending before this Court and was dismissed as infructuous on 27.03.2024 but that period of pendency of the writ petition before this Court is absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for filing a claim petition before the learned Tribunal challenging the order dated 05.08.1996 by the respondent.

33. We are of the view that the order dated 05.08.1996 attained finality on dismissal of the Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 17.12.1997, therefore, if the order dated 05.08.1996 was required to be challenged, the claim petition should have been filed within a period of one year from the date of the order and at the most, it could have been filed within a period of one year from the date of dismissal of the Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 i.e. from 17.12.1997.

34. On dismissal of the Contempt Petition No. 348 of 1995 vide order dated

17.12.1997, the Writ Petition No. 4668 (S/S) of 1996 became inconsequential and therefore, there was no occasion for the claimant to wait for disposal of the said writ petition for making a representations to the State Government and then file the claim petition in the year 2013, challenging therein the order dated 05.08.1996. So far as the representations 24.07.2012 and 16.8.2012 are concerned, we are of the view that the said representations have no relevance in computing the period of limitation of Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, as the said representations have not been filed under any rule or order regulating conditions of service of the government servant concerned. The period of limitation for filing claim petition against the order dated 05.08.1996 stood expired way back on 05.08.1997, therefore, the said representations, which were not in terms of any rule or conditions of service, in no way are helpful to the claimant for justifying the period of limitation for filing claim petition. We may in this regard refer to the decision by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Versus Vivekanand Singh and another, Service Bench No. 444 of 2015, wherein the law on the subject has been elucidated.

35. Having considered the overall facts and the circumstance of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, where order dated 05.08.1996 was under challenge, was barred by period of 11 WRIA No. 19113 of 2019 limitation prescribed under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the Act of 1976, therefore, the ex-parte order dated 08.04.2015 passed in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013, on its face, is unsustainable.

36. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 25 of 2013 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed in part and the claim petition is dismissed as barred by limitation. December 8, 2025 Satish (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench