Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/149/2023 on 20 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 148 OF 2023
20TH APRIL, 2023
Between:
Rajat Singh Kasana ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 149 OF 2023
Between:
Rajat Singh Kasana ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 150 OF 2023
Between:
Rajat Singh Kasana ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 151 OF 2023
2
Between:
Rajat Singh Kasana ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 152 OF 2023
Between:
Rajat Singh Kasana ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 153 OF 2023
Between:
Rajat Singh Kasana ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand /
respondent Nos. 1 to 5
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
Issue notice.
3
Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5
appears and accepts notice.
2) We have heard learned counsels as only a
question of law arises for consideration.
3) The petitioner has preferred the
aforementioned writ petitions to assail the common
judgment rendered by the Uttarakhand Public Services
Tribunal, Bench at Nainital, dated 18.04.2022, in a batch
of claim petitions, preferred by the petitioner. The claim
petitions have been rejected solely on the ground of
limitation, and the merits of the claim made by the
petitioner have not been examined by the Tribunal. The
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim petitions
were barred by limitation, since they had not been
preferred within one year from the date when the
appellate order, dismissing the petitioner's departmental
appeal, was decided against him. For this purpose, the
Tribunal placed reliance on Section 5(1)(b) of the U.P.
Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (as applicable to
Uttarakhand).
4) The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner had preferred a revision
against the appellate order in terms of Rule 23 of the
4
U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The revision was rejected on
21.01.2020, soon where after, the petitioner had
preferred the claim petition in March 2020. The
submission is that the period spent in pursuing the
revision was also liable to be excluded, while computing
the period of limitation.
5) A perusal of the application moved by the
petitioner before the Tribunal to explain the delay in
filing the claim petition shows that the petitioner did not
make any specific reference to Rule 23 of the of the U.P.
Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991, and he did not claim that he had
preferred revision against the appellate order. The
petitioner claimed that he had made a representation on
17.08.2018 to the Director General of Police, which was
rejected on 21.01.2020. The revision under Rule 23
could have been preferred before the next higher
authority - higher than the authority which had rejected
the departmental appeal. Moreover, the same could be
preferred within three months of the rejection of the
appeal.
5
6) The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that his pursuing the available remedy
before the higher forum was bona fide, and the period
spent in pursuing the said revision would have been
excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
7) We have considered the submissions of the
petitioner.
8) Though it appears to us that the petitioner
misdirected his remedy by merely making a
representation, and not preferring a revision under Rule
23, and that too making the representation to the
Director General of Police, instead of preferring the
revision before the Inspector General of Police, in our
view, that conduct of the petitioner would not justify the
rejection of the claim petition, as the said rejection -
merely on the ground of limitation, takes away a
valuable right of the petitioner to agitate his grievances
before a judicial forum. The Director General of Police
could well have marked the said representation by
treating the same as a revision under Rule 23 of the U.P.
Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991, to the concerned Inspector General
of Police for being considered as a revision against the
6
appellate order. The failure of the petitioner to mention
the relevant provision of the Rules did not take away his
right to avail of his statutory remedy. The conduct of
the petitioner shows that he did not waste any time after
the rejection of the representation on 21.01.2020.
9) We, accordingly, in the interest of justice,
allow these petitions, and set aside the impugned
judgment. The claim petitions are remanded back to the
Tribunal. The Tribunal shall proceed to hear the claim
petitions on their own merits.
10) All the petitions stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
11) All pending applications in these petitions also
stands disposed of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 20th APRIL, 2023
Negi
