ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The claim petition bearing No. 486 of 2019 has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The petitioner was initially appointed under the opposite parties vide order dated 29.07.1982 as Dispatcher in the pay-scale of Rs. 200-5-250-EB-6-260-EB-8-320 on temporary basis. His services were terminated without any notice. The petitioner has continued as Dispatcher w.e.f. the date of his joining in the year 1982 itself.

(3.) During the course of argument, Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly informed the Court that in the year 1991, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 6965 of 1991, which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.12.2012. This fact was not mentioned before the Tribunal nor has it been mentioned in the writ petition. Nevertheless, it has been brought to our notice by the counsel himself during arguments. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation on 07.09.2015, claiming entitlement to the post of Junior Clerk in the clerical cadre and seniority thereon with consequential benefits of promotion etc. This claim was apparently moved after 33 years of his appointment as Dispatcher. The petitioner was given the benefits of Dispatcher. The petitioner without disclosing the factum of having filed a writ petition before the High Court bearing no. 6965 of 1991, as noticed hereinabove filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal at Lucknow bearing no. 2053 of 2015, which was disposed of with a direction to the concerned opposite party to decide petitioner's representation dated 07.09.2015.