- (1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment of U. P. Public Services Tribunal dated 07.06.2007 passed in Claim Petition No. 1640 of 1994 whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking promotion as Assistant Grade-III in the U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors, has been dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation prescribed under the U. P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. He has also challenged the judgment dated 05.09.2007 whereby the review petition no. 61 of 2007 has also been dismissed.
(3.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the persons junior to him i.e. opposite parties nos. 5 and 6 before the Tribunal were considered and promoted to the post in question in the year 1984 but the petitioner was not selected. The petitioner again applied for being considered for promotion to Class-III post in the year 1992 but again he was not promoted. It is said that the petitioner preferred representations dated 11.09.1984 and 24.01.1986 which remained pending. As the matter of the petitioner was under consideration, therefore, he did not approach the Tribunal earlier and filed the claim in question only in the year 1994. Therefore, the rejection of claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation was not justified. For the same reason the rejection of the review petition was also not justified. The petitioner had clearly disclosed the dispatch number relating to the representations submitted by him, therefore, his claim could not be said to be barred by time. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-- 1. State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh, 1990 2 SLR 798 2.Sagayanathan and others Vs. Divisional Personal Officer, 1991 AIR(SC) 424 3. Gopi Behari Sahai Vs. District Railway Manager,Central Railway, Jhansi,1995 3 UPLBEC 89 4. Mohammad Ahmad Vs. U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow and others, 1997 2 UPLBEC 880 5. Rajarshi Tandon Mahila Mahavidyalaya & others Vs. State of U.P. & others, 1998 2 LBESR 330 (All)] 6. Sarabjit Singh Vs. Ex. Major B. D. Gupta and others, 2000 SCC(L&S) 821. 7.Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & others, 2008 AIR(SC) 2723 8.U.O.I. Vs. Hemraj Singh Chouhan, 2010 1 SCC(L&S) 1002. 9.A. Satya Narayana & others Vs. S. Purushottam & others,2008 2 SCC (L&S) 279 10.Radheshyam Vs. U.P. State Public Services Tribunal,2011 24 LCD 1485. 11. Rama Kant Dixit Vs. U. P. Public Services Tribunal,1999 SCD 118 On the other hand learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any error. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records we do not find any error in the impugned judgments. Section 5 (1) (b) of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 reads as under:-- "5(1)(b) The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) shall mutatis mutandis apply to reference under Section 4 as if a reference were a suit filed in civil court so, however, that -- (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; (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: 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 ma6y 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 whichever period expires earlier: Provided further that nothing in this clause as substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) (Amendment) Act, 1985 shall affect any reference made before and pending at the commencement of the Act.";