Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Notices on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 4 have been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. Shikhar Anand, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.5.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 4.5.2016, passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.1850 of 2011; Parmanand Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the claim petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.
In addition to the delay and latches with which this writ petition has been filed, we are of the considered view that the alleged punishment order relating to which the claim petition was filed relates to the year 1976, against which the representation of the petitioner was ultimately rejected in the year 2011 and thereafter he filed the claim petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow challenging the rejection of non-statutory representation order dated 23.03.2011. The claim petition has been rejected on merit vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.5.2016. Now the petitioner in the year 2021 has challenged the judgment of learned Tribunal passed in the year 2016 claiming that the efficiency bar and stoppage of two increments which were withheld shall be allowed and the petitioner shall be granted two increments.
It is to be noted that the petitioner has retired from service way back in the year 1996. He has received his all post retiral benefits without any protest, after his superannuation.
We have gone through the impugned judgment. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioner never challenged the annual confidential remarks which were given to him more than thirty years back. Two increments which were withheld were never restored as claimed by the petitioner. Besides the censure entry he was also warned. The service record of the petitioner also goes to show that the authorities concerned were not satisfied with the working of the petitioner. Until and unless the efficiency bar was crossed no benefit of service could be given to the petitioner. The efficiency bar cannot be crossed automatically.
We fail to understand as to why the petitioner was advised to file the writ petition; particularly at this belated stage when he has superannuated from service way back in the year 1996 and his claim petition has been decided five year ago in the year 2016.
Writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed on merit as well as on delay and latches.
.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.) Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Ram.