STATE OF U. P. Vs. BIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions involve similar facts and common issues, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar along with Shri Shiv Kumar Soni and Shri Ravi Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- State in Writ - A No. 16773 of 2019. In connected Writ-A No.15076 of 2021, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent while learned Standing Counsel has argued on behalf of the State.

(3.) As regards Writ A No. 16773 of 2019 we find that the petitioner, who was claimant in Claim Petition No. 232 of 2014 before the Tribunal, was visited with a punishment order of 27/10/2007. He filed an Appeal which was decided on 25/10/2008. He thereafter filed a Revision on 22/12/2008. He ultimately gave a legal notice on 2/1/2014 as is referable under the proviso to Sec. 4(6) of the Act, 1976 and on failure to pass any order in the revision, the said Claim Petition was filed in the year 2014, which has been dismissed, albeit on merits on 29/1/2019. The petitioner- Ram Babu's counsel contended that there is no limitation prescribed for giving a legal notice under the proviso to Sec. 4(6) of the Act, 1976 and that the State can not take advantage of its own negligence and lapse in not passing any order in Appeal. When no limitation has been prescribed it is not open for this Court to prescribe any limitation in the matter and that in the facts of the case, the claim petition was not barred by limitation. He further contended that the dismissal of the claim petition on merits is erroneous on various grounds as taken in the writ petition, therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. The contention of respondent- State counsel in this writ petition is that the petitioner-claimant could not have slept over the matter for more than 8 years to give notice under the proviso to Sec. 4(6) of the Act, 1976. He should have given such notice immediately on expiry of period of six months envisaged therein and thereafter, should have filed the claim petition within one year of expiry of the period of one month which was not done, therefore, the claim petition was barred by limitation. A specific objection in this regard was taken by the State in the written statement in para 3, 4.14 and other paragraphs of the written statement, but, the same have not even been referred much less considered by the Tribunal. He submitted that without considering the question of limitation the Tribunal, has dismissed the claim petition on merits, therefore, the State does not have any grievance with regard to the merits of the dismissal of the claim petition but has raised the said plea of limitation in response to the claim of the petitioner in this writ petition which should also be taken consideration.