Kaushal Kishore Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Consumer Protection and Legal Metrology Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32893-DB

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5942 of 2025

¶5

Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Consumer Protection And Legal Metrology Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar,Rudranshu Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

¶8

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment/order dated 10.03.2025 rendered by U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" ) in Claim Petition No.408 of 2025 whereby challenge against the order dated 16.08.2018 has failed on the ground that the claim petition instituted before the Tribunal was highly time barred.

¶9

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on account of the order of punishment i.e. stoppage of one increment temporarily for one year has not only caused him a pecuniary loss in his monthly pension but a recurring pecuniary loss.

¶10

4. On a perusal of the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, it is evident from the details mentioned under the heading "cause of action" that firstly it accrued on 16.08.2018 and subsequently, it accrued on 11.04.2019 and 01.08.2019 when the impugned orders were passed.

¶11

5. 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:

¶12

2

¶13

" 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:-

¶14

(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;

¶15

(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:

¶16

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.

¶17

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.] "

¶18

6. 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

¶19

3

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

8. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed . However, it is open to the petitioner, to agitate his cause for continuing loss in pension before the departmental authorities for which a representation made, if any, shall be considered and decided by passing a reasoned order.

¶23

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 29.5.2025 Shubhankar

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kaushal Kishore Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Consumer Protection and Legal Metrology Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Kishore Saxena v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Consumer Protection and Legal Metrology Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Develop,Ent Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Chandra Bali Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Forests, Environment Forests and Climate Change Dept. and Ors.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Pal and Another vs That State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Nandini Agnihotri and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and Others

Ram Singh Yadav vs Armed Force Tribunal Regional Bench Lko and 3 Others