Vinod Kumar Yadav (Pno-942020135) v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 4 Others

had occurred due to the death of earlier Counsel Sri Shashank Trivedi, Advocate, who did not file the case of the petitioner within time. The petitioner took back all the papers from the office of earlier counsel in the month of June, 2025 and handed over the same to Sri Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate, to file his case. The case was filed on

11.07.2025. The Tribunal has refused to look into the grounds of condonation for delay and has rejected the claim petition being barred by limitation.

5. We have gone through the order impugned and we find that the learned Tribunal has noted that the Appellate Order dated 16.05.2024 was challenged in Claim Petition only on 11.07.2025.

6. We find from the 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 3 WRIA No. 13038 of 2025 Tribunal by filing a claim petition.

9. 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.

10. 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 representation only to get over the hurdle of limitation and thereafter waited indefinitely for almost seven years before filing the claim petition.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 4 WRIA No. 13038 of 2025 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 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."

14. We find no legal infirmity in the orders impugned.

15. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 11, 2025 Rahul RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

had occurred due to the death of earlier Counsel Sri Shashank Trivedi, Advocate, who did not file the case of the petitioner within time. The petitioner took back all the papers from the office of earlier counsel in the month of June, 2025 and handed over the same to Sri Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma, Advocate, to file his case. The case was filed on

11.07.2025. The Tribunal has refused to look into the grounds of condonation for delay and has rejected the claim petition being barred by limitation.

5. We have gone through the order impugned and we find that the learned Tribunal has noted that the Appellate Order dated 16.05.2024 was challenged in Claim Petition only on 11.07.2025.

6. We find from the 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 3 WRIA No. 13038 of 2025 Tribunal by filing a claim petition.

9. 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.

10. 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 representation only to get over the hurdle of limitation and thereafter waited indefinitely for almost seven years before filing the claim petition.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 4 WRIA No. 13038 of 2025 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 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."

14. We find no legal infirmity in the orders impugned.

15. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 11, 2025 Rahul RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench