State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow has dismissed my claim petition on the ground of limitation

This legal guidance explains the remedies available when the State Public Services Tribunal dismisses a claim petition on the ground of limitation. It discusses the filing of a writ petition before the High Court, condonation of delay, and the circumstances in which the limitation period may be relaxed in service matters.

State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow has dismissed my claim petition on the ground of limitation without going in the merit of my case. I am working as a junior engineer in the government of Uttar Pradesh. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against me, and I have been punished with a minor punishment. I filed an appeal to the appellate authority on 12-02-2015. After filing of such an appeal, I personally appeared before the appellate authority to decide my appeal. In the pendency of that appeal, I am not able to avail other service benefits. My promotion is also getting delay due to the pendency of that appeal. Many appellate authorities have been transferred, and I appeared all of them. Due my continuous efforts the appeal was decided by the appellate authority in the month of July 2024.

The appellate authority has rejected my appeal without considering my grounds of appeal. Feeling aggrieved from the order of appellate authority, I prefer a claim petition in the State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow. That claim was admitted by the tribunal but for hearing on limitation issue only. The government advocate said that the punishment order was challenged after a delay and this claim petition is barred by limitation. On the next date of hearing the tribunal has dismissed my claim petition. Sir I have sent the order of tribunal on your email given on the website. Please read that judgment before giving advice. Thanks

Asked from: Uttar Pradesh 

The State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, has wrongly dismissed your claim petition. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, does not pertain to limitation. Instead, this section provides an aggrieved government servant the option to file a claim petition in the tribunal if their appeal, revision, or representation has been pending for more than six months. If such an appeal or representation remains undecided by the competent authority within six months from the date of filing, the aggrieved person, after serving a legal notice to that authority, may file a claim petition upon the expiry of one month from the date of service of that notice.

The period of limitation is specified in Section 5 of the State Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976. According to this section, the limitation period begins when the competent authority passes the final order. If an appeal, revision, or representation is pending before the authority, the limitation period does not commence, as established in Samarjeet Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2006) 2 AWC 2750].

The tribunal dismissed your case on the grounds that your appeal had been pending for more than nine years and that you had failed to serve a legal notice after six months from the date of filing the appeal. This reasoning is flawed for two reasons. Firstly, serving a legal notice is not mandatory. Secondly, the opposing party cannot benefit from its own wrongdoing. The appellate authority was at fault for keeping your appeal pending for over nine years.

The cause of action arose when the appeal was finally decided. At that point, the limitation period commenced as per Section 5 of the State Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976. Under this provision, you were required to file a claim petition within one year from the date you became aware of the order. As per Section 5, your claim petition was well within the limitation period. Therefore, the tribunal’s order is prima facie incorrect. You should file an appeal in the High Court against this order.

Also read:

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

Terminated from service for mere misconduct

This legal guidance explains the remedies available to an employee terminated from service for alleged misconduct without proper inquiry or proportional punishment. It discusses principles of natural justice, departmental proceedings, wrongful termination, reinstatement, back wages, and the legal remedies available before labour courts, tribunals, or constitutional courts.

Salary during termination period is illegally stopped by the department

This article discusses the legality of withholding salary during the period of termination or suspension from service. It examines the rights of an employee to claim salary, subsistence allowance, and other consequential benefits where the departmental action is alleged to be arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to service rules and principles of natural justice.

Daily wager service is terminated on misbehavior

This article discusses the legal implications of termination of service of a daily wager on allegations of misconduct or misbehavior. It examines whether principles of natural justice, departmental inquiry, and opportunity of hearing are required before terminating the services of a temporary or daily wage employee, along with the remedies available under labour and service laws.

Terminated from service by following illegal proceedings

This article examines the legality of termination orders passed after defective or unlawful departmental proceedings. It discusses violations of principles of natural justice, procedural irregularities in disciplinary inquiries, denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the remedies available to an employee against illegal termination from service.

Promotion of ineligible candidate violating the principle of seniority cum merit

This article discusses the legality of granting promotion to an ineligible candidate in violation of the principle of seniority-cum-merit. It examines the rights of eligible employees, the scope of judicial review in service matters, and the circumstances in which a promotion order may be challenged before the High Court or service tribunal on the grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination, or breach of statutory service rules.