A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) The short question which arises for consideration is whether the reference petition filed by the petitioner under Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1973 was barred by limitation. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the Ground of limitation. The other observations which appear in the order of the Tribunal are all linked to the question of limitation.
(2.) The facts which are not disputed are these. The petitioner was appointed as a Routine Grade Clerk in the former Local Self Government Engineering Department by an order dated November 30, 1972. In 1976 Jal Nigam was constituted and the petitioner opted to serve in the Jal Nigam. On July 7, 1978 an order was passed terminating the petitioner's services by giving him one months 's salary in lieu of notice. The petitioner challenged that order by way of representations, the first of which was filed on December 18, 1978 and the Elston July 5, 1980. The last representation yielded some result. The Chief Engineer of the Department sent for the record of the petitioner's service and, on a perusal of the entire case passed an order on July 18, 1980 appointing the petitioner afresh. The order purports to give a fresh appointment to the petitioner. Although the petitioner joined the service on July 31, 1980 he was dissatisfied with the relief granted to him.. Accordingly he made another representation on September 30,1980 claiming continuity of service, arrears of pay for the intervening period and seniority. This was rejected on June 12, 1981 whereupon the petitioner immediately moved the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by way of a reference under Section 4 aforesaid. As mentioned above, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground of limitation.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal was wrong in taking the view that the petitioner's claim was barred by limitation. The Tribunal has observed that the petitioner is really challenging the original order of termination dated July 27, 1978 and the other reliefs claimed by him are merely ancillary in nature. That being so, the Tribunal says, the claim of the petitioner was barred by limitation as prescribed by Section 5 of the Act.;