# Munna Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 332
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-26
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 2359 of 2025
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munna-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53070
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

CIVIL LAW - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - Rule 10(2) - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant's
Conduct
Rules,
1956- Writ Petition - challenging the Tribunal's
order - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal
from service in year 2013 - petitioner claimed
that he never received the dismissal order -
which prevented him from filing an appeal or
revision under Rules, 1991 - Representation in
year 2016 - Rejection in year 2016 - 1st Claim
petition in year 2016 - order for decide the
representation of the petitioner - authority
rejected the representation in year 2017 - 2nd
Claim Petition in year 2018 - Tribunal dismissed
said claim petition, on the grounds of delay -
writ petition - Petitioner argued that rejection of
representation of the petitioner gave rise to a
fresh cause of action, invoking the doctrine of
merger - The Court observed that, tribunal
erred in dismissing the claim petition solely on
the ground of limitation without appreciating
that the petitioner had diligently pursued his
remedies and the doctrine of merger had come
into effect - and since the petitioner promptly
pursued the remedies upon se5rvice of the
dismissal order, the claim of the petitioner could
not held to be time-barred by overlooking the
scheme of statutory Rules - held, the rejection of
the claim petition merely on the ground of
limitation is legally unsustainable in view of the
application of doctrine of merger which followed as
a result of non-supply of the order passed in the
year 2013 giving rise to representation under Rule
25 of Rules, 1991 - consequently, writ petition is
allowed - and the matter is remitted to the
Tribunal for deciding it afresh on merits - direction
issued accordingly. (Para - 28, 32, 35)

Review Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

33. Accordingly, the impugned orders
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and
the same are hereby quashed.

34. The writ petitions are allowed.
The matter is remanded to the authority
concerned for deciding afresh by passing
a reasoned and speaking order, after
hearing all the stakeholder, within a
period of two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this
order.

35. Any amount deposited by the
petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders,
shall be subject to the outcome of the fresh
orders to be passed by the authority
concerned.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 332
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Writ - A No. 2359 of 2025

Munna Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohd. Nasir, Sri Mohd. Yasir, Sri
Navneet Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

CIVIL LAW - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
1999 - Rule 10(2) - Uttar Pradesh
Government
Servant's
Conduct
Rules,
1956- Writ Petition - challenging the Tribunal's
order - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal
from service in year 2013 - petitioner claimed
that he never received the dismissal order -
which prevented him from filing an appeal or
revision under Rules, 1991 - Representation in
year 2016 - Rejection in year 2016 - 1st Claim
petition in year 2016 - order for decide the
representation of the petitioner - authority
rejected the representation in year 2017 - 2nd
Claim Petition in year 2018 - Tribunal dismissed
said claim petition, on the grounds of delay -
writ petition - Petitioner argued that rejection of
representation of the petitioner gave rise to a
fresh cause of action, invoking the doctrine of
merger - The Court observed that, tribunal
erred in dismissing the claim petition solely on
the ground of limitation without appreciating
that the petitioner had diligently pursued his
remedies and the doctrine of merger had come
into effect - and since the petitioner promptly
pursued the remedies upon se5rvice of the
dismissal order, the claim of the petitioner could
not held to be time-barred by overlooking the
scheme of statutory Rules - held, the rejection of
the claim petition merely on the ground of
limitation is legally unsustainable in view of the
application of doctrine of merger which followed as
a result of non-supply of the order passed in the
year 2013 giving rise to representation under Rule
25 of Rules, 1991 - consequently, writ petition is
allowed - and the matter is remitted to the
Tribunal for deciding it afresh on merits - direction
issued accordingly. (Para - 28, 32, 35)

Review Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Income Tax Appeal No. 86 of 2015 (Umang
Agarwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle, Allahabad,

2. St. of West Bengal Vs Confederation of St.
Government Employees, (2019) 3 Cal LJ 351,

3. Chhajju Ram Vs Neki , 1922 SCC OnLine PC
11 : (1921-22) 49 IA 144 : AIR 1922 PC 112],

4. Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs Mar
Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526],

5. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I., (2000) 6 SCC 224 :
2000 SCC (Cri) 1056,
3 All. Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
333
6. Meera Bhanja Vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
[(1995) 1 SCC 170],

7. Parsion Devi Vs Sumitri Devi reported in
(1997) 8 SCC 715,

8. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs Govt. of A.P.
[AIR 1964 SC 1372],

9. Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs Pishak Sharma
reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389,

10. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs Assam SEB
(2020) 2 SCC 677,

11. Perry Kansagra Vs Smriti Madan Kansagra
(2019) 20 SCC 753,

12. S. Murali Sundaram Vs Jothibai Kannan &
ors., (2023) 13 SCC 515,

13. Pancham Lal Pandey Vs Neeraj Kumar
Mishra & ors., AIR 2023 (SC) 948,

14. M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs Commissioner Trade
Tax, Lucknow, 2024 (6) ADJ 248,

15. M/s. M.M.I. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs
Iftikhar Alam, 2024 (5) ADJ 708,

16. Rajendra Singh Vs Lt. Governor, Andaman
and Nicobar Islands & ors., (2005) 13 SCC 289,

17. Board of Control for Cricket in India & anr.
Vs Netaji Cricket Club & ors., (2005) 4 SCC 741.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Nasir & Sri
Abhishek Khare for the petitioner and Sri
Praful Yadav, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petit
ioner
has
assailed
the
judgment/order
dated
12.07.2022,
rendered by the U.P. State Public
Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.
355 of 2018, by which the claim petition
instituted by the petitioner has been
dismissed.
The
claim
petition
has
primarily been dismissed on the ground
of heavy latches.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the
case are that disciplinary proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner for a
major
penalty,
which
ultimately
concluded with the passing of the order
dated 28.11.2013, whereby the petitioner
was dismissed from service. The order of
dismissal from service was passed in the
backdrop of disciplinary proceedings,
which seem to have been initiated against
the petitioner, wherein his participation is
evident, yet objections from time to time
regarding the procedure adopted seem to
have been raised by the petitioner. After
passing of the final order on 28.11.2013,
the petitioner does not seem to have
availed of the statutory remedy of appeal
available under Rule 20 of the U.P.
Police Officer of Subordinate Rank
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
(here-in-after referred to as "Rules,
1991"). Once the appeal was not filed by
the petitioner under Rule 20 of the Rules,
1991, the question of filing a revision
under Section 23 of the Rules, 1991,
never emerged. It was after a period of
about two and a half years from the date
of passing of the dismissal order on
28.11.2013 that a representation dated
25.04.2016 was filed by the petitioner,
addressed to the State under Rule 25 of
the Rules, 1991, and in the aforesaid
representation, the petitioner made a
specific averment as under :-

 "उपरोक्त दववादित िण्डािेश की प्रदत याची को आज
दिनाांक तक प्राप्त नहीं कराई गई है। याची को सेवा हटाये जाने एवां
अनुपदस्थत अवदध दिनाांक 09.05.10 से 03-02-13 तक
कुल 1027 दिवस का कोई वतन/भिा न दिये जाने (िोनो िण्ड)
के आिेशों की कायावाही याची को अनुपदस्थत समय में पूणा की गई
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
है। याची को बचाव का अफसर भी प्रिान नहीं दकया गया है।
दववादित आिेशों की प्रदत प्राप्त न होने के कारण, याची पूवा में दकसी
भी अदधकारी को अपील यादचका िायर नहीं की है।"

4. It was a categorical case of the
petitioner that the order of dismissal from
service based on 28.11.2013 was not served
upon him, which prevented him from
availing of the remedy of appeal or
revision,
within
the
statutory
period
prescribed under the Rules. Soon after
filing the aforementioned representation, it
appears that the petitioner approached the
U.P. Public Services Tribunal by filing
Claim Petition No.1511 of 2016, wherein
paragraph no.4(1) of the claim petition
reads as under :-

 "That the present claim petition is
directed
against
the
arbitrary
and
discriminatory action to terminate the
service of the petitioner vide order dated
28.11.2013 under Sub rule A(1) of Rules
14(1) of Punishment and Appeal Rules
1991 and no salary/allowances of his
absence for period of 09.05.2010 to
03.02.2013, i.e. 1027 days. It is relevant to
state that there was no such punishment
order has been provided to the petitioner
and entire proceeding for dismissal of the
petitioner had been done behind the
petitioner. In absence of availability of any
punishment order ever passed against the
petitioner, the petitioner sought information
from the end of Nodal officer, Firozabad vide
his application dated 23.01.2016 and the
information was made available vide letter
dated 09.02.2016 which shows that the entire
proceeding for terminating the services of the
petitioner was conducted behind his back. In
this circumstances, the petitioner had no
option except to represent the highest
authority of the department and hence he
submitted a representation to opposite party
no.1 which is still pending. The true copy of
representation dated 25.04.2016 is annexed
as Annexure No. 1 to this Claim Petition."

5. It is evident from the paragraph
no.4(1) of the claim petition, extracted above,
that non-supply of the order of punishment
dated 28.11.2013 was specifically pleaded by
the petitioner in the claim petition so
instituted. The claim petition filed by the
petitioner prayed for the following reliefs :-

 (i) to direct the opposite parties to
consider
and
decide
the
petitioner's
representation
dated
25.04.2016
within
stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble
Tribunal (contained in Annexure No.1)

 (ii) to direct the opposite parties to
quash Show Cause notice dated 10.09.2013,
order dated order dated 28.11.2013 by which
the salary for absence period have been
withhold being 'No work No pay' and order
dated
28.11.2013
through
which
the
petitioner had been dismissed (contented in
annexure nos. 2,4&5) with all consequential
benefits.

 (iii) Any relief or benefits which
this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper
including the cost of the application may also
be given to applicant.

6. The two distinct reliefs sought
by the petitioner ought to have been
examined by the learned Tribunal within
the domain of its jurisdiction. The learned
Tribunal, instead of expressing any opinion
on relief clause (ii), chose to dispose of the
claim petition in the light of relief clause
(i), and the order so passed on 10.08.2016
reads as under :-

 "1. Heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner. He confines his prayer for
disposal of representation dated 25.4.2016
3 All. Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
335
(Annexure-1), which was filed before the
opp.party no.l against the impugned order
of dismissal dated 28.11.2013.

 2. The main grievance of the
petitioner is that he was dismissed from
service vide order dated 28.11.2013. The
petitioner preferred representation dated
25.4.2016 before the opp.party no.l which
has not yet been disposed of.

 3. The prayer of the petitioner is
quite innocuous. In the interest of justice,
the opp.party no.l is directed to dispose of
representation dated 25.4.2016 (Annexure1) within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgement by a speaking order under
communication to the petitioner."

7. It is worthy to note that the
learned Tribunal, while passing the above
order, did not decide anything on merit
insofar as the challenge against the main
order dated 28.11.2013 is concerned. This
appears to be for the reason that the
petitioner had specifically pleaded nonsupply of the punishment order to him,
regarding
which,
he
had
made
a
representation before the State Government
under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991. Having
appreciated the submission of the petitioner
on relief clause (i), the Tibunal disposed of
the claim petition by issuing a limited
direction for deciding the representation
dated 25.04.2016.

8. At the first blush, it appears that
the tribunal by passing such an order had
attempted to do something indirectly which
it could not do directly, as the cause against
the order dated 28.11.2013 was barred by
the period of limitation. This would not be
a right understanding of the Tribunal's
order. The learned Tribunal rather noticed
the fact that the order of punishment was
not
communicated
to
the
petitioner,
therefore, direction for the disposal of the
representation dated 25.04.2016 would
serve the ends of justice.

9. For any punitive action taken
against an officer of subordinate ranks in
the police department, a three-fold remedy
is provided under the relevant rules.

10. Firstly, an appeal is provided
under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991, which,
for ready reference, is extracted below:

 "20. Appeals.- (1) Every Police
Officer
against
whom
an
order
of
punishment mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to
(iii) of clause (a) and sub-clauses (i) to (iv)
of clause (b) of Rule 4 shall be entitled to
prefer an appeal against the order of such
punishment to the authority mentioned
below:-

 (a) to the Police Officer who is
the
immediate
jurisdictional
superior
authority to the Police Officer who passed
the order of punishment;

 (b) to the Director General of
Police who may either decide the appeal
himself
or
nominate
any
Additional
Director General for deciding it;

 (c) to the State Government
against the order passed under clause
(b).]

 (2) No appeal shall lie against an
order
inflicting
any
of
the
petty
punishments enumerated in sub-rules (2)
and (3) of Rule 4.

 (3) Every officer desiring to
prefer an appeal shall do so separately.
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (4) Every appeal, preferred under
these rules shall contain all material,
statements, arguments relied on by the
police officers preferring the appeal, and
shall be complete in itself, but shall not
contain
disrespectful
or
improper
language.
Every
appeal
shall
be
accompanied by a copy of final order
which is the subject of appeal.

 (5) Every appeal, whether the
appellant is still in service of Government
or not, shall be submitted through the
Superintendent of Police of the district or
in the case of police officers not employed
in district work through the head of the
office to which the appellant belongs or
belonged.

 (6) An appeal with not be
entertained unless it is preferred within
three months from the date on which the
police officer concerned was informed of
the order of punishment:

 Provided
that
the
appellate
authority may, at his discretion, for good
cause shown extend the said period up to
six months.

 (7) If the appeal preferred does
not comply with the provisions of sub-rule
(4) the appellate authority may require the
appellant to comply with the provisions of
the said sub-rule within one month of the
notice of such order to him and if the
appellant
fails
to
make
the
above
compliance the appellate authority may
dispose of the appeal in the manner as it
deems fit.

 (8) The Director-General or an
Inspector-General may, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, either on his own
notion or on request from an appellate
authority before whom the appeal is
pending transfer the same to any order
officer of corresponding rank."

11. A person aggrieved by an order
passed by the appellate authority is left
with a further opportunity of filing a
revision under Rule 23 of Rules, 1991 and
the same for ready reference is reproduced
hereunder :-

 23. Revision - (1) An officer
whose appeal has been rejected by any
authority subordinate to the Government is
entitled to submit an application for
revision to the superior authority next to
the authority which has rejected his appeal
within three months from the date of
rejection of appeal as mentioned below:-

 (a) to the Police Officer who is
the
immediate
jurisdictional
superior
authority to the Police Officer who passed
the appellate order;

 (b) to the Director General of
Police who may either decide the revision
himself
or
nominate
any
Additional
Director General for deciding it;

 (c) to the State Government
against the order passed under clause (b).

 On such an application the
powers of revision may be exercised only
when,
in
consequent
of
flagrant
irregularity, there appears to have been
material injustice or miscarriage of justice:

 Provided
that
the
revising
authority may on its own motion call for
and examine the records of any order
passed in appeal against which no revision
has been preferred under this rule for the
purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality
3 All. Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
337
or propriety of such order or as to the
regularity of such procedure and pass such
order with respect thereto as it may think
fit:

 Provided further that no order
under the first proviso shall be made except
after
giving
the
person
effected
a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in
the matter.]

 (2) The procedure prescribed for
appeal applies also to applications for
revision. An application for revision of an
order
rejecting
an appeal
shall
be
accompanied by a copy of the original
order as well as the order of appellate
authority.

12. There is yet another channel of
statutory remedy provided under Rule 25 of
Rules, 1991, which for ready reference is
also reproduced hereunder :-

 25. Powers of Government.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in these
rules, the Government may, on its own
motion or otherwise, call for and examine the
records of any case decided by an authority
subordinate to it in the exercise of any power
conferred on such authority by these rules,
and against which no appeal has been
preferred under these rules and-

 (a) confirm, modify or revise the
order passed by such authority; or

 (b) direct that a further inquiry be
held in the case; or

 (c) reduce or enhance the penalty
imposed by the order; or

 (d) make such other order in the
case as it may deem fit:
 Provided
that
where
it
is
proposed to enhance the penalty imposed
by any such order the police officer
concerned shall be given an opportunity of
showing cause against the proposed
enhancement.

13. Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991,
operates in a different field and for a
definite purpose, both for the State as well
as for an aggrieved person. Two aspects of
the rule are evident. Firstly, the rule
provides for a remedy notwithstanding
anything envisaged under any other rules of
the Rules, 1991. Secondly, this provision is
invoked by the State suo moto or otherwise
where an appeal is not instituted by an
aggrieved person. The power under Rule 25
of the Rules, 1991, has been conferred for
definite purposes mentioned in the statutory
rules itself, which are of wide import.

14.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, in the backdrop of the aforesaid
facts, has argued that the representation
dated 25.04.2016, which was preferred
under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991, has been
decided by the competent authority by
passing a detailed and reasoned order on
merit. It is, thus, argued that once a
statutory representation was decided by the
State by passing an order on merit, the
principle of merger would apply insofar as
the period of limitation against the cause of
action, which had initially accrued to him
against the order dated 28.11.2013, merged
into the order dated 05.06.2017. The
submission is that once the competent
authority
proceeded
to
decide
the
representation on merit, the matter was
again looked into at the higher level and the
whole cause assumed a new frame and
form. That being so, the learned Tribunal,
while rejecting the claim petition on the
ground of limitation computed with effect
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from the date of the original order dated
28.11.2013, fell in error, and therefore, the
impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal
purely on the ground of limitation suffers
from an apparent error of law, calling for
interference in the exercise of jurisdiction
vested in this Court by virtue of Article
227/226 of the Constitution of India.

15.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, to buttress his argument, has
placed reliance upon a judgment rendered
by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
S.S. Rathore vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh : (1989) 4 SCC 582.

16. Per contra, learned counsel for
the State, placing reliance upon a Division
Bench judgment of this Court rendered in
the case of Amol Kumar Sharma v. Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Tribunal, 2021
SCC OnLine All 457, has argued that once
the remedy under Rule 25 of the Rules,
1991, was held to be a non-statutory
remedy, the principle of merger, as put
forth by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, would not be applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.

17. Learned counsel for the State,
on the basis of instructions, has further
argued that a copy of the order dated
18.11.2013 was served upon the wife of the
petitioner on 04.12.2013, and any averment
to the contrary made in the representation
or claim petition is wholly unfounded. It
has also been argued that the view taken by
the learned Tribunal does not suffer from
any illegality and the judgment so rendered
deserves affirmation.

18. Considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.
19. The case of the claimantpetitioner is that the dismissal order passed
by
the
competent
authority
dated
28.11.2013 was not served upon him. In
these
circumstances,
the
petitioner
preferred a representation dated 25.04.2016
under Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991.

20. In the representation moved by
the petitioner on 25.04.2016, a specific plea
has been taken by him that in absence of
availability of any punishment order ever
passed against the petitioner, he sought an
information from the Nodal Officer,
Firozabad vide his application dated
23.01.2016 and the information was made
available on 09.02.2016. Having no option,
the petitioner preferred the representation
dated 25.04.2016 to the higher authority of
the department.

21. When the said representation
was not decided, he filed a Claim Petition
No. 1511 of 2015 which was disposed of
vide order dated 10.08.2016 directing the
State
Government
to
decide
his
representation within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the tribunal's order.

22. It is noteworthy to mention
here that apart from praying for a direction
to decide his representation by the
competent authority, the petitioner had
prayed for quashing of the show cause
notice dated 10.09.2013, dismissal order
dated 28.11.2013 and one more order dated
28.11.2013 by which the salary for the
period of absence was withheld on the
principle of 'No Work No Pay'. The said
representation was rejected vide order
dated 05.06.2017 which was challenged
before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal by
filing Claim Petition No. 355 of 2018. The
said petition so filed was rejected by means
3 All. Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
339
of the impugned order dated 12.07.2022 on
the ground of limitation. The bar of one
year postulated under Section 4 of the Uttar
Pradesh Public Service (Tribunal) Act,
1976 was construed from the date of
original order dated 28.11.2013.

23.
Though
it
has
been
acknowledged by the Tribunal that no
limitation is provided in Rule 25 of the
Rules, 1991, but the claim petition
preferred by the petitioner stands rejected
solely on the ground that the representation
was preferred by the petitioner without
availing the statutory remedy of appeal/
revision. The representation was held to be
non-statutory which on its rejection would
not enable the petitioner to claim the
benefit of limitation from a subsequent
date, the tribunal has opined.

24. The petitioner has evidently
approached the Tribunal twice. On one
occasion, the Tribunal directed the State
Authorities to decide the representation
within two months. At this juncture, it is
worthwhile to mention that the tribunal
instead of issuing a direction for deciding
the representation was at liberty to treat the
pending representation as non-statutory,
and reject the claim petition on the ground
of limitation. But while issuing a direction,
the tribunal appears to have understood the
wider import of statutory rules particularly
Rule - 25 of the Rules, 1991.

25. When the petitioner approached
the Tribunal second time against the rejection
of his representation decided on merit, the
claim petition was rejected by computing the
period of limitation from the date of original
order passed in 2013 rather looking into the
consequence of merger, which Rule - 25 of
the Rules, 1991 is capable to bring about.
Such a provision operates as a residuary
power with the state to nullify the actions
which do not stand in conformity with law by
taking suo motu notice and exceptionally the
jurisdiction is available to the aggrieved
person as well in appropriate cases, as at
hand.

26. The second claim petition could
not be thrown out simply because the
petitioner had not availed statutory remedies
available under law, inasmuch as, the order
dated 28.11.2013 had not been supplied to the
petitioner till 09.02.2016 when he approached
the Nodal Officer, Firozabad for its supply.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner
immediately
approached the Tribunal as noted here-inabove. The doctrine of merger came into
operation to subsume a lower authority's
decision into that of the higher authority
when a remedy was pursued and dealt with
on merit exhaustively.

27. In this case, the petitioner for
want of the supply of punishment order could
not file an appeal against the original
dismissal order which on being supplied
belatedly left him open to make a
representation under Rule 25 of Rules, 1991
and the same was decided on merit. Once the
competent
authority
decided
the
representation on merit, the dismissal order
essentially merged with the decision on the
representation for it being a remedy
prescribed under the Rules.

28. It follows, therefore, that the
period of limitation ought to have been
reckoned not from the date of the original
dismissal order but from the date when the
statutory representation was decided. The
Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim
petition solely on the ground of limitation
without appreciating that the petitioner had
diligently pursued his remedies and the
doctrine of merger had come into effect.
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
29.
The
Supreme
Court
in
Kunhayammed & others v. State of Kerala
and another [(2000) 6 SCC 359], held that
when a superior authority adjudicates a matter
on merit, the lower authority's order ceases to
have an independent existence. Similarly, in
Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4
SCC 109], the Court held that once an
administrative authority reconsiders an order,
limitation should be counted from the date of
reconsideration of decision rather than the
original order.

30. The rejection of the claim petition
by the Tribunal solely on the ground of
limitation violates the fundamental principles of
natural justice. The petitioner was unaware of
his dismissal order until he received an
information from the Nodal Officer, Firozabad.
It is well-settled principle of procedure that
limitation does not begin to run against a party
until he has knowledge of the adverse order.

31. A plea has been taken by the
respondents that though the dismissal order was
alleged to have been served upon the wife of
the petitioner on 04.12.2013, but it was not
established from the record that it had actually
been served upon her. After 21⁄2 years, the
Nodal Officer, Firozabad supplied the requisite
information on 09.02.2016 that too on the
petitioner's application moved on 23.01.2016.
Thereafter, on a direction given by the Tribunal,
the representation was decided on merit by the
competent authority by a detailed order passed
on 05.06.2017 against which the petitioner filed
a claim petition on 20.02.2018, which ought to
have been treated well within time prescribed
under the statute.

32. Since the petitioner promptly
pursued the remedies upon service of the
dismissal order, the claim of the petitioner could
not held to be time-barred by overlooking the
scheme of statutory Rules understood as above.
33. For the aforementioned reasons,
the Court is of the opinion that the rejection
of the claim petition merely on the ground of
limitation is legally unsustainable in view of
the application of doctrine of merger which
followed as a result of non-supply of the
order passed in the year 2013 giving rise to
representation under Rule 25 of the Rules,
1991. Secondly, the petitioner was deprived
of an opportunity to contest his dismissal
order
on
merits
due
to
procedural
irregularities of service of the order and
lastly, limitation cannot run against a party
unaware of the adverse action.

34. In view of the foregoing
paragraphs, the view taken by the
Tribunal is not tenable and calls for
interference.

35. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed and the impugned judgment and
order dated 12.07.2022 is quashed. The
matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding
it afresh on merits, within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order, as the matter is lingering
since 2013. Parties undertake to co-operate
with the proceedings before the Tribunal. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 18801 of 2024 connected with
other cases

Priyankar Upadhyaya ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents