JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by Hari Shanker Lal against the judgment and order dated, 1-4-1979 passed by the Services Tribunal appointed under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer to the Executive Engineer in the f Circle, Irrigation Department, U.P., on 13-7-1945. He was working as Stenographer in the office of the Additional Chief Engineer, Gorakhpur in 1971, when he was transferred by the order of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Lucknow Office to Additional Chief Egnieer, Ram Ganga Project, Kalagarh, vide No. 5203/E-4, dated 10-5-1971, and this order was endorsed to the Additional Chief Engineer, Gandak, Gorakhpur, vide endorsement No. 3266 1GP, dated 3-6-1971, for necessary action. Subsequently, the petitioner was relieved on 5-7-1971. The petitioner did not join at the transferred place. A he was avoiding to handover, the petitioner was informed also on 6-6-1971 at Gorakhpur Headquarters to proceed to his transferred place, that is, Kalagarh. Instead of joining his Service, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1139 of 1975 in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court Challenging the validity of his transfer order. He stated therein that he was attending the officer of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, as a Stenographer regularly. On the strength of the said averment, the Lucknow Bench passed an interim order directing the State Government to make payment of his salary at the rate which had been drawn in May 1971. The writ petition remained pending in the High Court and, thereafter, it was abated on 18-9-1977, in view of the amended Article 226 of the constitution read with Section 58(2) of the Constitution. Forty Second Amendment, 1976. As a result of dismissal of the writ petition, the stay order stood automatically vacated. The petitioner was thereafter stooped payment of salary as the petitioner had not worked during the period for which he was paid salary under the ex-parte order of the High Court. 3. On 1-4-1979, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 834-1 of 1979 1 before the Services Tribunal. The petitioner was thereafter stooped payment of salary as the petitioner had not worked during the period for which he was paid salary under the ex-parte order of the High Court. 3. On 1-4-1979, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 834-1 of 1979 1 before the Services Tribunal. The reliefs claimed by him in this petition were as follow : - "Therefore, it is respectfully prayed : (a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside the order of the Additional Chief Engineer, Gandak, dated 5-6-1971 contained enclosure 2 to the Annexure 1 filed with this claim petition by issuing a suitable order or direction. (b) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an order or direction directing the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 to post him as Circle Head Assistant with effect from the date 14-11-1967 when orders promoting his junior Sri Sunder Lal Bhatnagar was issued, fix his pay and given him seniority accordingly. (c) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to issue an order on direction directing the opposite parties No. 2 to pay the salary from 1-5-1971 to date as due to him fixing his pay as per new orientation of pay scales and giving him due increments, pay his T. As. (2 Nos.) bills amounting to Rs. 63/10 and 228,25, house rent and other benefits as due to him with effect from 1-6-1971 to date. (d) That this Hon'ble Tribunal may pass such other order which just and appropriate directing the opposite parties to pay costs of the suit." 4. The claim petition was contested by the State of U.P. and the grounds on which the petitioner claimed the above three reliefs were disputed. The Service Tribunal rejected the claim petition by holding that the petitioner and not been working in the Irrigation Department and also by finding that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner was barred by time. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Courts on 26th May, 1980. He also filed a stay application with a prayer that the High Court may issue interim order to pay monthly salary to the petition in continuation of the interim order of the Lucknow Bench dated 11-2-1976 till the petitioner was finally retired. 5. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in this Courts on 26th May, 1980. He also filed a stay application with a prayer that the High Court may issue interim order to pay monthly salary to the petition in continuation of the interim order of the Lucknow Bench dated 11-2-1976 till the petitioner was finally retired. The High Court directed the State Government to pay each month in future the salary which the petitioner was drawing when the payment was made to him on 6-1-1975. The interim order further provided that in case the writ petitioner was dismissed, that amount paid to the petitions shall be recovered from the amount payable to him as gratuity. 6. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of U.P. Station that the petitioner had completed 58 years of age on 31-8-1977 and, therefore there was no occasion for a directing to pay, salary to him after this date. For the period before 31-8-1977, the plea of the State appears to be that the petitioner had been absconding from office of the Chief Engineer with enteral from 3-6-1971, without any leave having been sanctioned by the Department. The State alleged that having absconded from duty, the petitioner ceased to be in Government service with effect from the aforesaid date under Rule 18 of Financial Hand Book Vol. (Parts II of IV), in as much as the petitioner had been absenting from duty without any leave for more than eight years. The counter-affidavit further stated that with regard to same of the reliefs claimed in the petition before the services tribunal, the petitioner has filed civil suit which was decreed initially by the trial court but thereafter the appeal filed by the State, which was civil Appeal No. 113 of 1971, in the court of the First Additional District Judge, Varanasi, was allowed and the suit was dismissed on the finding that the petitioner was not entitled to be given any relief in the same. According to the counter-affidavit, the claim petition was not maintainable on account of a decision between the parties having already been taken. The contesting respondents further alleged that against this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner had filed a second appeal No. 473 of 1973, which was dismissed on 28-1-1976. According to the counter-affidavit, the claim petition was not maintainable on account of a decision between the parties having already been taken. The contesting respondents further alleged that against this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner had filed a second appeal No. 473 of 1973, which was dismissed on 28-1-1976. Not satisfied, the petitioner filed a review application which also had met the same fate. 7. Coming to the interim stay order, it may be pointed out that the same was vacated on 13-3-1981, but subsequently the petitioner moved an application on which this Court directed the State of U.P. to pay the arrears of salary till 13-3-1981, when the stay order dated, 26-5-1980 was vacated. The petitioner thereafter received salary up to the aforesaid date in March 1981. 8. The petitioner has appeared in person in this petition and urged that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner were barred by time. His argument that he had been attending the office of the Chief Engineer Irrigation Department, was not rightly accepted by the service tribunal inasmuch as in the absence of any order transferring hint to that office, he could not attend the same office. In the counter-affidavit the State of U.P. has alleged that the petitioner had been absconding from the duty, and that he has not been attending the office of the Chief Engineer (Irrigation). 9. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has claimed for the quashing of the order of the Services Tribunal on the ground that as he had been paid the salary up to May, 1971, in January 1975, therefore, the subsequent claim made in 1975, would not be barred by time. 10. The First argument of the petitioner was that the Services Tribunal committed an error in holding that the relief claimed with respect to illegality of the transfer order dated, 3-6-1972 could not be questioned after three years of its passing. Vol. 10. The First argument of the petitioner was that the Services Tribunal committed an error in holding that the relief claimed with respect to illegality of the transfer order dated, 3-6-1972 could not be questioned after three years of its passing. Vol. II (Parts II to IV), which is a statutory provision, provides that till the charge of the office has not been taken, the incumbent his entitled to continue at the place where he is working and on that basis he contended that since no arrangements had been made for taking over of the charge, the petitioner could not be deemed to have been relieved, as ordered by the Chief Engineer, on 5-6-1971. The submission is liable to be rejected both on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that the same has no substance. Since the transfer order was passed on 3-5-1971, the claim should have been nude challenging the same within three years of the same. Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which is a residuary article, provides for a suit for declaration. It lays down three years period of limitation to run with effect from the date on which the right to sue fired accrues. 11. in the instant ease, the writ petition had been filed in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in 1975. Before filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had not done anything or raised any controversy. Although in the writ petition, he has alleged that he had filed an appeal challenging the validity of the transfer order to the Engineer In Chief, Irrigation Department, but paragraph 15 of the counter-affidavit has denied the allegation. It is correct that for filing a writ petition there is no limitation prescribed, but for claiming a relief of the nature like the present, the petitioner should have approached the High Court expeditiously. He having not done so, could not be heard saying that the claim was within time. I am aware that this petition was abated, but that will not improve matters as the petitioner on the basis of the earlier writ petition wanted to explain the delay. The Services Tribunal rightly found that relief (A) claimed by the petitioner had become barred by time. 12. That apart, relief (a) with the passage of time has become in fructuous for the petitioner. The Services Tribunal rightly found that relief (A) claimed by the petitioner had become barred by time. 12. That apart, relief (a) with the passage of time has become in fructuous for the petitioner. He has retried from service after having attained the age of superannuation on 31-8-1977. I am also not satisfied otherwise that this transfer order was invalid on the ground suggested by the petitioner. The petitioner had been told that he had been relieved from the charge of his office. He, as a Government servant owed a duty to take charge at the transferred place irrespective of the fact that the place was not to his liking. From the facts given in the petition, one cannot resist having an impression that the petitioner was avoiding to proceed to the office of the Additional Chief Engineer, Ram Ganga Project, Kalagarh. His attitude was unjustified. 13. So far as the second relief is concerned, it appears to me that the same is not available to the petitioner. From his own averment made in the claim petition, it appears that the petitioner had made a grievance of reversion and claimed relief regarding the same in the civil suit. He stated in the claim petition that his junior Sri Sunder Lal Bhatnagar had been further promoted by the Chief Engineer's order dated 14-11-1967 to the post of Circle Head Assistant and being aggrieved he served a notice on the State Government under Section 80, C. P. C. and, ultimately, filed the suit, being suit No. 104 of 1968. The suit was decreed by the Civil judge, but the appeal preferred by the State of U.P. was allowed and the decree was set aside. Reliance had been placed by the petitioner on certain observations made by the First Additional District Judge in his favour. Be that as it may, the observations made would not change the results. He had filed the second appeal and that was also dismissed. The petitioner's grievance of relief (b) was rightly negatived by the Services Tribunal. 14. Paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit appears to be a complete reply to the petitioner's claim of promotion. The Tribunal was right in holding this relief also to be barred by time. He had filed the second appeal and that was also dismissed. The petitioner's grievance of relief (b) was rightly negatived by the Services Tribunal. 14. Paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit appears to be a complete reply to the petitioner's claim of promotion. The Tribunal was right in holding this relief also to be barred by time. It may be noted here that clause (b) of Section 5 of the Act applies the provisions of the Limitation Act to all references under Section 4, as if a reference were a suit. From the facts it appears that the cause of action about promotion had arisen to the petitioner on 14-11-1967. As such, it was barred by time, when the claim petition was filed. Moreover, this relief had already been negatived by the dismissal of the suit filed by the petitioner. In fact, the claim petition was not entertain able and was liable to be rejected on this ground. 15. By the third relief, the petitioner wanted a direction from the Tribunal to issue an order or direction to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow, to pay the salary from 1-6-1971 to date due to him. The petitioner had been relieved on 5-6-1971, and, as such, he would not be entitled to get any salary for the period thereafter. At this place, it may be a mentioned that the petitioner had received salary up to 31-8-1977, on the date of his attaining the age of superannuation. 16. The petitioner contended that he had not been retired on 31-8-1977, and, therefore, he was entitled to get salary even for the period thereafter. In his own language, requirement of law was that he should have been duly retired. Most certainly, the petitioner is not suggesting by using the words "duly retired" that some sort of ceremony was required to be performed. On attaining the age of 58 years, every Government servant retires from service in the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of fifty eight years. 17. The petitioner further alleged that as an enquiry on the charge of absconding had been initiated against him, he would be deemed to be continued in service even after the age of superannuation. This is a curious argument. 17. The petitioner further alleged that as an enquiry on the charge of absconding had been initiated against him, he would be deemed to be continued in service even after the age of superannuation. This is a curious argument. For completing an enquiry, retention of a Government servant after the age of superannuation for the purpose of enquiry can be made by an order. No such order had been passed in the case of the petitioner. He is not entitled to any salary' after attaining the age of superannuation on 31-8-1977. This finding does not mean that the petitioner was entitled to salary for the period that he had been absconding. Departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner. 18. For these reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The amount paid to the petitioner under the or dears passed by this Court from lime to time would be recoverable from him.