Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16483-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3108 of 2025 Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Amit Singh,Anil Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Mishra Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prafull Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgement and order passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal on 28.02.2025 in Claim Petition No. 246 of 2025, whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner herein has been dismissed on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation of one year from the date of original appellate order passed on the appeal i.e. 01.12.2022. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice calling him upon to submit his explanation with respect to certain allegations. The petitioner, having participated in disciplinary proceedings, was punished by passing an order in the nature of censure punishment vide order dated 01.10.2022. This order passed by the Disciplinary Authority gave rise to an appeal which was finally rejected by the Appellate Authority on 01.12.2022. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 01.12.2022, approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. Writ-A No. 12009 of 2024 (Sri Arun Kumar Gautam Pno No. 172170062 vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.). The preliminary objection against the maintainability of the said writ petition was raised by the State, which was sustained and, consequently following order was passed by this Court in the aforesaid petition on 13.12.2024:- "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents. 2. At the very outset, Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing pointed out that against the impugned order, petitioner is having alternative remedy to file revision under the provisions of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which could not be disputed by learned counsel for petitioner. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is some delay in filing revision, therefore, Court may please to condone the same and direction may be issued to the concerned authority to decide the revision on merits. 4. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file revision before the competent authority. 5. In case any such revision is filed under the provisions of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 within three weeks from today, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of laches, but be decided on merits." Two things are evident from the order extracted above viz. (i) the State raised preliminary objection on the basis of statutory remedy being available to the petitioner, and (ii) the petitioner faced with the bar of limitation as prescribed for maintainability of the revision had duly apprised the Court regarding the limitation having run out. It is having regard to the preliminary objection raised by the State that an observation was made that the revision so filed may not be rejected on the ground of limitation. The Court consciously directed that the revision be decided on merits. This order of the writ Court has remained unchallenged and has attained finality, meaning thereby that the aspect of limitation became irrelevant and the revision which was decided on merit gave rise to a fresh cause of action for the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Revisional Authority, if he was so aggrieved. 4. Since the Revisional Authority rejected the revision filed by the petitioner on merit, therefore, the petitioner approached the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal against the revisional order as well as the previous orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority. 5. It appears from the record that the State raised an objection on the ground that the period of limitation would be effective from the date of original order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. 01.12.2022 and the subsequent orders passed on the revision would not give rise to the cause. 6. The learned Tribunal having regard to the fact that the period of limitation for filing the revision had since run out and there was no explanation for the delay, as such, the Tribunal proceeded to compute the period of limitation from the date of passing of the original order by the Appellate Authority on 01.12.2022, according to which, the claim petition was beyond the period of limitation of one year as prescribed in Section 5 (1)(b)(ii) of U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976. The learned Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment, lost sight of the fact that the period of limitation had already fallen for consideration before this Court while deciding the Writ-A No. 12009 of 2024 and specific direction was issued by this Court to the effect that the revision which was permitted to be filed beyond the period of limitation shall be decided on merits. This order clearly reveals that the aspect of limitation was not open to be re-agitated by the State before the Tribunal, once the judgement passed by this Court on 13.12.2024 was not assailed and had attained finality. Once the revision was decided on merit, it clearly implied that a fresh cause of action had accrued to the petitioner. The claim petition instituted before the Tribunal in these circumstances was certainly not barred by limitation from 10.01.2025 i.e. the date on which the revision was rejected. This aspect of the matter seems to have been lost sight of by the learned Tribunal and finality attached to the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 12009 of 2024 (supra) could not be unsettled. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while substantiating his arguments put forth before us, has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgement passed in Writ-A No. 7303 of 2022 on 17.11.2022 which lends complete support to the argument put forth. 8. This Court finds that the case law relied upon by the petitioner supports his case convincingly. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the State has brought to our notice a judgement rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59 (Union of India and Ors. vs. M.K. Sarkar). We have carefully considered the aforementioned judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court and it is found that the facts and circumstances of the case law which has been cited by the State though holds the field, but the facts of the present case stand at variance. When the point of limitation was specifically dealt with by this Court while disposing of the Writ-A No. 12009 of 2024 (supra), the State Government having decided the revision on merit pursuant thereto could not turn around and defeat the finality of writ court order passed on 13.12.2024. 10. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the judgement rendered by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is legally untenable. 11. For all these reasons, the impugned judgement passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal on 28.02.2025 is set aside. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merit. 14. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal, where the matter shall be proceeded on merit by giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties and the same shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. [Rajeev Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Arpan Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench