HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 6189 of 2023 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following reliefs:- " i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by Learned State Public Service Tribunal, contained as annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 19.08.2015 and 24.01.2018 passed by opposite parties as contained annexure no. 12 and 13 to this writ petition. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding/directing the opposite parties to pay all consequential service Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Mani Tripathi, Praveen Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Manish Mishra Rajeev Kumar Tamta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) benefits to the petitioner including arrears of pay and other services benefits as and when the same falls due ignoring the impugned orders. iv) to pass any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the interest of justice. v) to award the cost of the writ petition. 2. After hearing the parties and perusing the record what comes out is that the petitioner herein was visited with a punishment vide order dated 19-08-2015. Challenging this punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal under the U.P. Government Servant Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999 before the higher authority on 16-03-2016. This appeal came to be decided on 24-01-2018. The appeal infact was dismissed as barred by limitation prescribed in Rule 11 (4) of the Rules, 1999. The petitioner filed the claim petition on 28-01-2018. The said claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation . The Tribunal has opined that the appeal of the appellant itself being delayed, no benefit of limitation could be given to the petitioner's claim for preferring the claim petition. 3. We have perused the provisions of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 as also the Rules 1999. The claim petition of the petitioner was within the limitation prescribed as per the Act, 1976 only to the extent of examining validity of the appellate order dated 24-01-2018 as it had been filed within one year of passing of the said order. However, the fact remains that the appeal under rule 11 of the Rules, 1999 was delayed. Rule 11(4) of the Rules 1999 reads as under:- " (1)Except the orders passed under these rules by the Governor, the Government servant shall be entitled to appeal to the next higher authority from an order passed by the disciplinary authority. WRIA No. 6189 of 2023 2 (2) The appeal shall be addressed and submitted to the appellate authority. A Government servant preferring an appeal shall do so in his own name. The appeal shall contain all material statements and arguments relied upon by the appellant. (3) The appeal shall not contain any intemperate language. Any appeal, which contains such language may be liable to be summarily dismissed. (4) The appeal shall be preferred within 90 days from the date of communication of impugned order. An appeal preferred after the said period shall be dismissed summarily." 4. The punishment order was passed on 19-08-2015, therefore, the appeal should have been preferred within 90 days. Infact sub-rule 4 of Rule 11 of Rules, 1999 contains a categorical provision that any appeal filed after 90 days would be rejected by the appellate authority. Therefore, the appellate authority cannot be faulted for having rejected the appeal vide order dated 24-01-2018 as being time barred. It being so the claim petition was clearly barred so far as the punishment order dated 19-08-2015 was concerned, we, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal subject to the observations made herein, ultimately the result remains the same. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. September 17, 2025 pks WRIA No. 6189 of 2023 3 (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench