Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and others
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-respondents and Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers : "(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the learned State Services Tribunal U. P. Lucknow in the claim petition No.651 of 2025, contained as Annexure No. 3, to this writ petition. (ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the Revisional order dated 29.11.2020 passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Kanpur Zone Kanpur, appellate order dated 08.05.2020 passed by the Inspector General of Police Kanpur Region Kanpur as well as punishment orders dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police Kanpur Nagar, contained as Annexure No. 4, 5 and 6 respectively, in the interest of Justice." It is the case of the petitioner that he had challenged the punishment order dated 18.10.2019, the appellate order dated 08.05.2020 and the revisional order dated 29.11.2020 in Writ-A No.3661 of 2025 "Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others", which was disposed of on 05.04.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow 2 WRIA No. 12624 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The petitioner applied for a certified copy, which was obtained with a delay of four days and therefore approached the Tribunal after 14 days instead of within 10 days as required under the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by this Court. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected his claim petition as being barred by limitation. It has been submitted that since this Court had directed the Tribunal to consider all his claims, pleas and grounds and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the claim petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out from the impugned order that it is evident the petitioner had approached this Court only in 2025 i.e. five years after the passing of the revisional order and almost seven years after the passing of the original punishment order. Moreover, the Court observed that the Tribunal had considered the claim petition strictly in accordance with law. There is a prescribed limitation period of one year for approaching the Tribunal from the date of the impugned order. Therefore, the claim petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. With regard to the question of whether this Court could have condoned the delay or directed the Tribunal to overlook the limitation prescribed under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder, it has been informed that there is a judgment of the Division Bench in Writ-A No.5942 of 2025 "Kaushal Kishore Saxena vs. State of U.P. and others", decided on 29.05.2025, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall not apply in the case of a claim petition, and hence, the delay cannot be condoned as a claim petition is to be treated as a suit. The said Division Bench placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in State Bank of India vs. B. S. Agriculture Industries (I), reported in (2009) 5 SCC 121 and observed that the State Public Services Tribunal does not have any power to condone the delay or extend the period of limitation in filing a claim petition. We have gone through the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 passed in 3 WRIA No. 12624 of 2025 Kaushal Kishore Saxena (supra). However, we find that it was not a case where this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal against the punishment order, the appellate order and the revisional order for filing the claim petition. We also find another judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Karan Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 SCC OnLine All 2531, wherein the specific point was considered. The facts of the said case were that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 09.12.1985 on the ground of non-possession of the requisite eligibility qualification. The petitioner initially filed a writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy by order dated 22.01.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in July
1993. The claim petition was allowed by an ex parte order. Such order of the Tribunal was challenged in Writ Petition No.5424 (SB) of 1996, wherein this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh after giving a clear finding on the point of limitation, by its judgment and order dated 09.02.2005. Thereafter, the Tribunal found that the claim petition was barred by limitation and therefore rejected it by order dated 06.08.2000. Shri Karan Kumar Yadav then approached this Court in Writ Petition No.1433 (SB) of 2007, which was decided on 20.11.2007 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Court gave a clear finding with regard to the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the matter was covered by the observations made by the writ court in its order dated 22.01.1986, where the petitioner was relegated to the alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal by filing a claim petition. The alternative argument was also considered that the petitioner had moved an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under Rule 8(4) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1992, the Tribunal had full jurisdiction to condone the delay in entertaining the claim petition. The Court observed that once the petitioner had approached the High Court directly in Writ Petition No.480 of 1986 and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy on 22.01.1986, there was no occasion for the petitioner to make any further representation. The petitioner made a 4 WRIA No. 12624 of 2025 representation only to get over the hurdle of limitation and thereafter waited indefinitely for almost seven years before filing the claim petition. The Court further observed that if the interpretation given by learned counsel for the petitioner to Rule 8(4) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1992 were to be accepted, it would be contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the substantive Act and also to the Indian Limitation Act. Section 5, in the matter of claim petitions, merely refers to the petitioner seeking condonation of delay and filing a separate application supported by an affidavit for that purpose. The Rules of 1992 only prescribe the contents of the petition, which does not mean that they confer any right upon the claimant to seek condonation of delay or confer any authority upon the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the claim petition if there exists a specific bar under the Act or if the provisions of the Limitation Act do not permit it. The Court observed in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of Writ Petition No.1433 (SB) of 2007 as follows: "12. Section 5(1)(b) aforesaid lays down the applicability of Limitation Act and confines it to the reference under Section 4 of the Act, 1976 as if a reference was a suit filed in the Civil Court . This leaves no doubt that a claim petition is just like a suit filed in the Civil Court and in the suit the period of limitation cannot be extended by applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Sub clause (i) of Section 5 of the Tribunal's Act, specifically provide limitation for filing the claim petition i.e. one year and in sub clause (ii) the manner in which the period of limitation is to be computed has also been provided.
13. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under:- " Extension of prescribed period in certain cases:- Any appeal or any application, other than an appliation under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ( 5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient case for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation:- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any 5 WRIA No. 12624 of 2025 order, practice or judgement of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this Section".
14. Its applicability is limited only to application/appeals and revision. It hardly requires any argument that section 5 does not apply to original suit, consequently it would not apply in the claim petition. Had the legislature intended to provide any extended period of limitation in filing the claim petition, it would not have described the claim petition as a suit filed in the Civil Court under section 5(1)(b) and/or it would have made a provision in the Act giving power to the Tribunal, to condone delay, with respect to the claim petition also." In effect, the Court observed that merely because the writ petition was filed and dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, it would not constitute a valid ground for condoning a delay that is otherwise not condonable under the Act and Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. We find that the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 11.06.2025 does not suffer from any incorrect appreciation of law. Therefore, we find no merit in the instant writ petition. This writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. November 6, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the State-respondents and Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers : "(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the learned State Services Tribunal U. P. Lucknow in the claim petition No.651 of 2025, contained as Annexure No. 3, to this writ petition. (ii) A writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the Revisional order dated 29.11.2020 passed by the Additional Director General of Police, Kanpur Zone Kanpur, appellate order dated 08.05.2020 passed by the Inspector General of Police Kanpur Region Kanpur as well as punishment orders dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police Kanpur Nagar, contained as Annexure No. 4, 5 and 6 respectively, in the interest of Justice." It is the case of the petitioner that he had challenged the punishment order dated 18.10.2019, the appellate order dated 08.05.2020 and the revisional order dated 29.11.2020 in Writ-A No.3661 of 2025 "Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others", which was disposed of on 05.04.2025 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow 2 WRIA No. 12624 of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The petitioner applied for a certified copy, which was obtained with a delay of four days and therefore approached the Tribunal after 14 days instead of within 10 days as required under the order dated 05.04.2025 passed by this Court. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected his claim petition as being barred by limitation. It has been submitted that since this Court had directed the Tribunal to consider all his claims, pleas and grounds and to dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the claim petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out from the impugned order that it is evident the petitioner had approached this Court only in 2025 i.e. five years after the passing of the revisional order and almost seven years after the passing of the original punishment order. Moreover, the Court observed that the Tribunal had considered the claim petition strictly in accordance with law. There is a prescribed limitation period of one year for approaching the Tribunal from the date of the impugned order. Therefore, the claim petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of limitation. With regard to the question of whether this Court could have condoned the delay or directed the Tribunal to overlook the limitation prescribed under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 and the rules framed thereunder, it has been informed that there is a judgment of the Division Bench in Writ-A No.5942 of 2025 "Kaushal Kishore Saxena vs. State of U.P. and others", decided on 29.05.2025, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall not apply in the case of a claim petition, and hence, the delay cannot be condoned as a claim petition is to be treated as a suit. The said Division Bench placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in State Bank of India vs. B. S. Agriculture Industries (I), reported in (2009) 5 SCC 121 and observed that the State Public Services Tribunal does not have any power to condone the delay or extend the period of limitation in filing a claim petition. We have gone through the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 passed in 3 WRIA No. 12624 of 2025 Kaushal Kishore Saxena (supra). However, we find that it was not a case where this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the Tribunal against the punishment order, the appellate order and the revisional order for filing the claim petition. We also find another judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in Karan Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 SCC OnLine All 2531, wherein the specific point was considered. The facts of the said case were that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 09.12.1985 on the ground of non-possession of the requisite eligibility qualification. The petitioner initially filed a writ petition, which was dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy by order dated 22.01.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in July
1993. The claim petition was allowed by an ex parte order. Such order of the Tribunal was challenged in Writ Petition No.5424 (SB) of 1996, wherein this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh after giving a clear finding on the point of limitation, by its judgment and order dated 09.02.2005. Thereafter, the Tribunal found that the claim petition was barred by limitation and therefore rejected it by order dated 06.08.2000. Shri Karan Kumar Yadav then approached this Court in Writ Petition No.1433 (SB) of 2007, which was decided on 20.11.2007 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The Court gave a clear finding with regard to the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the matter was covered by the observations made by the writ court in its order dated 22.01.1986, where the petitioner was relegated to the alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal by filing a claim petition. The alternative argument was also considered that the petitioner had moved an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under Rule 8(4) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1992, the Tribunal had full jurisdiction to condone the delay in entertaining the claim petition. The Court observed that once the petitioner had approached the High Court directly in Writ Petition No.480 of 1986 and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy on 22.01.1986, there was no occasion for the petitioner to make any further representation. The petitioner made a 4 WRIA No. 12624 of 2025 representation only to get over the hurdle of limitation and thereafter waited indefinitely for almost seven years before filing the claim petition. The Court further observed that if the interpretation given by learned counsel for the petitioner to Rule 8(4) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1992 were to be accepted, it would be contrary to the provisions of Section 5 of the substantive Act and also to the Indian Limitation Act. Section 5, in the matter of claim petitions, merely refers to the petitioner seeking condonation of delay and filing a separate application supported by an affidavit for that purpose. The Rules of 1992 only prescribe the contents of the petition, which does not mean that they confer any right upon the claimant to seek condonation of delay or confer any authority upon the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the claim petition if there exists a specific bar under the Act or if the provisions of the Limitation Act do not permit it. The Court observed in paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 of Writ Petition No.1433 (SB) of 2007 as follows: "12. Section 5(1)(b) aforesaid lays down the applicability of Limitation Act and confines it to the reference under Section 4 of the Act, 1976 as if a reference was a suit filed in the Civil Court . This leaves no doubt that a claim petition is just like a suit filed in the Civil Court and in the suit the period of limitation cannot be extended by applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Sub clause (i) of Section 5 of the Tribunal's Act, specifically provide limitation for filing the claim petition i.e. one year and in sub clause (ii) the manner in which the period of limitation is to be computed has also been provided.
13. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under:- " Extension of prescribed period in certain cases:- Any appeal or any application, other than an appliation under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ( 5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient case for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation:- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any 5 WRIA No. 12624 of 2025 order, practice or judgement of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this Section".
14. Its applicability is limited only to application/appeals and revision. It hardly requires any argument that section 5 does not apply to original suit, consequently it would not apply in the claim petition. Had the legislature intended to provide any extended period of limitation in filing the claim petition, it would not have described the claim petition as a suit filed in the Civil Court under section 5(1)(b) and/or it would have made a provision in the Act giving power to the Tribunal, to condone delay, with respect to the claim petition also." In effect, the Court observed that merely because the writ petition was filed and dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, it would not constitute a valid ground for condoning a delay that is otherwise not condonable under the Act and Rules. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. We find that the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 11.06.2025 does not suffer from any incorrect appreciation of law. Therefore, we find no merit in the instant writ petition. This writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. November 6, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench