ARVIND JAISWAL Vs. U P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises for consideration is whether the reference petition filed by the petitioner u/Sec. 4 of the U. P. Public Services (Tribunal Act), 1976 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 27, 1978 an order was passed terminating the petitioner's services by giving him one month'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 last on 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.) IN the present case, as mentioned above, the first representation was filed by the petitioner on December 18, 1978. No orders were passed on the same As a result, the petitioner filed further representations and the last in the series of representations was filed on July 5, 1980. The last representation, as already mentioned, resulted in the order of appointment issued to the petitioner on July 18, 1980. It is apparent that the petitioner's representations from 1980 onwards were allowed only in part in that the petitioner was not allowed continuity of service nor seniority nor the salary for the intervening period. He was offered fresh posting orders with which he was not satisfied. As a result, he filed another representation on September 30, 1980 which was rejected on June 12, 1981. Under clause (b) of Sec. 5 (1), therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the exclusion of the entire period spent by him in prosecuting the representations made by him. If that period is excluded it is indisputable that the petitioner's claim petition would be within time even if the period of limitation is reckoned from July 27, 1978. There is another way of looking at things. The petitioner's representation was rejected on July 12, 1981. The previous representations had, as mentioned above, succeeded in part only and ultimately it was on June 12, 1981 that the petitioner was finally told that the Department was not agreeable to grant the relief which he had claimed in respect of the order of termination dated July 27, 1978. It is not disputed that the claim petition had been filed within one year from June 12, 1981. IN my opinion, the cause of action on which the petitioner had claimed relief really arose on June 12, 1981 and inasmuch as the period of limitation prescribed under clause (i) of Sec. 5 (b) is one year, the petitioner's claim was clearly within time in any view.