Devendra Prasad Maurya vs U.P. State Public Services Tribunal , Indira Bhawan , Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman and 7 Others

1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30535-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5544 of 2025 Petitioner :- Devendra Prasad Maurya Respondent :- U.P. State Public Services Tribunal , Indira Bhawan , Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Pratap Verma,Surya Mani Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

(1) Heard Sri Surya Mani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Mishra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-authorities.

¶7

(2) By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal whereby the Claim Petition directed against the order of dismissal from service was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Tribunal whereby the review petition filed against the dismissal of claim petition was rejected.

¶8

(3) Admittedly, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition relying upon the provisions of Section 5 (1) (b) of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 which reads as under:

¶9

" 5(1) [(b) The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall mutatis mutandis apply to reference under section 4 as if a reference were a suit filed in civil court so, however, that:-

¶10

(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;

¶11

2

¶12

(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 final order passed on such representation, appeal, revision or petition, as the case may be, shall be excluded:

¶13

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, shall affect any reference made before and pending at the commencement of the said Act.

¶14

Provided further that nothing in this clause as substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Tribunals) (Amendment) Act, 1985, Shall affect any reference made before and pending at the commencement of the said Act.] "

¶15

(4) A plain period of Clause 1(b) of the Act explicitly shows the period of limitation as one year. Once the Reference is to be understood a Suit by virtue of the provisions of Section 5 (1)(b), the period for instituting the reference becomes binding and breach thereof precludes the tribunal to entertain a belated claim. It is settled law that the State Public Services Tribunal does not have any power to condone the delay or to extend the period of limitation in filing the claim petition is well settled in the case of ' State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), [(2009) 5 SCC 121] . Thus, the plea of the petitioner for condonation of delay cannot be accepted and is to be rejected.

¶16

3

¶17

(5) For the reasons stated above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶18

(6) The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶19

[Rajeev Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 akhilesh/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devendra Prasad Maurya v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal , Indira Bhawan , Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Prasad Maurya v. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal , Indira Bhawan , Lucknow Thru. Its Chairman and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz the Complainant of Fir NO.96/2025 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others vs Amit Kumar and 2 Others

Sunita Nishad and Another Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

Female Constable Komal Sharma, Pno No. 212431395 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and 3 Others vs Smt. Shakuntala

Manish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others