Bona fide pursuit of representation to higher authorities justifies condoning delay in filing claim petitions before Services Tribunals.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Uttarakhand Police, was awarded a censure entry punishment on 17.08.2016.

His departmental appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 17.08.2017.

The petitioner then filed various representations/revisions to the Director General of Police (DGP), which were telephonically informed to be rejected on 21.01.2020.

The Tribunal dismissed the petitions on 18.04.2022 solely on the ground of limitation, stating they were not filed within one year of the appellate order.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the High Court, contending that the time spent pursuing his revision should be excluded from the limitation period.

1. Whether the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petitions as barred by limitation without examining the merits.

2. Whether the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing a representation/revision before the higher authority could be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.

Section 5(1)(b) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 (as applicable to Uttarakhand), which mandates a one-year limitation period for filing claim petitions.

Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which provides a statutory remedy for revision.

The principle underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, regarding the exclusion of time spent bona fide in pursuing a remedy before a wrong forum, and the principle that a petitioner’s right to a judicial forum should not be extinguished by technical failures in mentioning specific rules.

The High Court observed that while the petitioner might have misdirected his remedy by filing a "representation" to the DGP instead of a formal "revision" to the Inspector General under Rule 23, this conduct was bona fide and did not justify summary dismissal.

The Court reasoned that the DGP could have treated the representation as a revision under Rule 23 and forwarded it to the appropriate authority.

Crucially, the Court held that the failure to cite the correct rule does not strip a litigant of their right to a statutory remedy.

Given that the petitioner acted promptly after the rejection of his representation on 21.01.2020, the Court found that the claim petitions should be considered within time if the date of the revision's rejection is taken as the starting point.

The Court emphasized that rejecting a petition solely on limitation grounds unfairly terminates a valuable right to judicial grievance redressal.

The Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 18.04.2022, and remanded the claim petitions back to the Tribunal for a hearing on their merits.

It held that, for the purpose of limitation, the petitions were within time considering the rejection date of the representation/revision as 21.01.2020.