Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
2. This writ petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 14th February, 2020 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), rejecting Claim Petition No.1753 of 2019 filed by the petitioner being time-barred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the claim petition was time-barred though it was filed within the period of limitation from the date of revisional order dated 15th March, 2019. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lalji Tiwari Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others, 2014 (32) LCD 1357, where it has been held that the period spent in deciding the representation, appeal, revision or petition shall be excluded from the period of limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents, on the other hand, submits that in fact the revision preferred by the petitioner itself was time-barred as the period, prescribed for filing the revision, is three months whereas the revision was filed after approximately one year from the date of rejection of the appeal. The claim petition could not be treated to be within the period of limitation as the revision itself was time-barred and, it was no revision in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition being time-barred. In support of his submission, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel places reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1989) 4 SCC 582, particularly paragraphs 19, 20 and 22.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents and gone through the record.
6. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, challenging punishment order dated 10th July, 2017, appellate order dated 23rd August, 2017 and revisional order dated 15th March, 2019.
7. From perusal of the order impugned, it clearly indicates that against the order of punishment dated 10th July, 2017, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was decided on 23rd August, 2017. The petitioner thereafter did not prefer revision within time. He filed revision on 23rd November, 2018, after a delay of nearly a year, which was rejected being time-barred.
8. It is well settled law that the period of limitation should be counted from the final order, which, in the present case, is the order passed on appeal i.e. 23th August, 2017. The claim petition was preferred after the period of limitation of one year from 23rd August, 2017 and, as such, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, treating it to be time-barred. So far as the revision preferred by the petitioner is concerned, the revision was filed much after the period of limitation i.e. three months prescribed for filing of the same, as such, it could not be treated to be the revision in time. The revision was not decided on merit, but was rejected being time-barred. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Lalji Tiwari Vs. U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others (supra), which has been relied by the petitioner, is concerned, it is to be noted that the coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the period spent in deciding representation, appeal, revision or petition shall stand excluded by calculating the limitation for filing of the claim petition. There is no dispute to the aforesaid legal proposition. So far as the period of limitation is concerned, the period spent in deciding an appeal, revision or petition shall be excluded from the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the claim petition.
9. In the present case, since the revision was preferred much after the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the revision, as such, the same was no revision in the eyes of law. The period of limitation could not be counted from the date the revision was rejected. It is to be counted from the date the appeal was decided i.e. 23rd August, 2017.
10. In the case of S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court has held that even the claim petition can be filed during the pendency of statutory appeal or revision after six months. In case the said appeal or revision has not been decided. Paragraphs 19, 20 and 22 of S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) are reproduced below:-
"19. The question for consideration is whether it should be disposal of one appeal or the entire hierarchy of reliefs as may have been provided. Statutory guidance is available from the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. There, it has been laid down:
"20.(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,--
(a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or
(b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired.
(3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial."
20. We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle.
22. It is proper that the position in such cases should be uniform. Therefore, in every such case only when the appeal or representation provided by law is disposed of, cause of action shall first accrue and where such order is not made, on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was filed or representation was made, the right to sue shall first accrue. Submission of just a memorial or representation to the head of the establishment shall not be taken into consideration in the matter of fixing limitation."
11. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.) Order Date :- 26.8.2021 Ram.