Judgment ( 1. ) THE appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 6. 1. 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5836/2003 in the matter of Dr. Anil Kumar Krishnanand Rao Telang Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others granting relief in favour of the respondent-petitioner that his services would be taken to be twenty years qualifying him to obtain pension, has filed this appeal. ( 2. ) THE short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 27. 2. 1969. It appears that after sometime he was transferred to Durg from where he was transferred vide order dated 5. 6. 1979 (Annexure-A/1) to Ambikapur in the same capacity as Assistant Surgeon/c. H. O. He was relieved vide order dated 11. 6. 1979. The petitioner submitted his joining report at Ambikapur on 18. 6. 1979 and applied for grant of casual leave to bring his family from Durg to Ambikapur, the leave was sanctioned. The petitioner, thereafter started asserting that his daughter was ailing since May 1979, her condition became serious and as she advised complete bed rest, he had applied for earned leave for a period of six weeks. Thereafter the Chief Medical Health Officer, District Hospital, Ambikapur advised him to join the duties after obtaining permission from the Joint Director, Health Services, Bilaspur. It does not appear from the pleadings or the records that the order passed by the Chief Medical Health Officer, District Hospital, Ambikapur was ever challenged before any authority or the original petitioner ever approached the Joint Director for grant of permission to join at Ambikapur. It appears from the petition that the petitioner did not join the post and approached the Tribunal in the year 1989. It was, however, contended that during the period between 1979 to 1989, the petitioner was running from pillar to post and nobody was ready and willing to decide his representations or issue any order in his favour, compelled by the circumstances, he came to the Tribunal. It is to be seen that after filing of the original application, notices were issued to the respondents/state but as usual, the State Government did not come out of its slumber for a long period and choose to file the return after 15 years. It is to be seen that after filing of the original application, notices were issued to the respondents/state but as usual, the State Government did not come out of its slumber for a long period and choose to file the return after 15 years. However, in the return, it was submitted that the petitioner was suppressing material facts and was not informing the Tribunal that he was issued letters on 27. 7. 1979, 5. 11. 79, 28. 12. 79 and 4. 3. 80 to join his duties but he failed. It was also asserted in the return that the petitioner had opened a private clinic at Bhilai and was happily engaged in the private practice. It also appears from the return that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 2. 3. 91 and he was asked to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days, but the petitioner chose to maintain silence and preferred to remain absent from the service and now had reached the age of superannuation. Ultimately a notice to show cause was issued on 3. 9. 2002 and the period of absence was treated as dies non. Original Application filed in the year 1989, on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to this Court and was registered as Writ petition No. 5836/2003. Being aggrieved by the final order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner/state has come to this Court. ( 3. ) SHRI Ruprah, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/state submitted that from the averments made in the petition, it would clearly appear that the cause of action would accrue in favour of the petitioner immediately after the Chief Medical Health Officer, District Hospital,ambikapur required the petitioner to seek permission for joining from Joint Director, Health Services, Bilaspur. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said communication then he was required to challenge the said communication before the Tribunal within one year from the date of receipt of the communication. In the alternative, it was submitted that submission of reminders/representations would not extend the period of limitation because the petitioner, if had the cause of action on a particular date then the said limitation if had started running, then nothing would stop it. In the alternative, it was submitted that submission of reminders/representations would not extend the period of limitation because the petitioner, if had the cause of action on a particular date then the said limitation if had started running, then nothing would stop it. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the petitioner was issued repeated notices to come and join but he did not join and also without taking into notices that in the year 1991, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet but the petitioner did not join the enquiry. It is submitted by him that the learned Single Judge could not allow the petition and direct that the period of service be counted as 20 years for purpose of pension. ( 4. ) SHRI Mudgal, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner, however, submitted that in fact there was no delay in approaching the Tribunal and even otherwise it is to be seen that for a long period of 15 years, the respondents did not file their return. It is also submitted that if, by an illegal order, the petitioner was refused to submit his joining then the petitioner was not required to challenge the same. It was also submitted that the petitioner had submitted his joining but as the present appellants were adamant in not permitting the petitioner to join they had issued false notices and proceeded with a wrong enquiry which ultimately was dropped. It is submitted by him that after looking into the totality of the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was not unjustified in directing that petitioners services period be counted as 20 years enabling to get the full pension. ( 5. ) UNDISPUTEDLY and it would even clearly appear from the submissions made in the petition that after expiry of earned leave, the petitioner went to join the service. He was not allowed to join and was required to obtain permission from the Joint Director, Health Services. The question that whether permission from the Joint Director, Health Services was required or not could not be decided by the petitioner. In any case, if he was of the opinion that such permission was not required then he should have sent in writing to the Chief Medical Health Officer. The question that whether permission from the Joint Director, Health Services was required or not could not be decided by the petitioner. In any case, if he was of the opinion that such permission was not required then he should have sent in writing to the Chief Medical Health Officer. It is also clear from the record that the letter issued by the Chief Medical Health Officer was not challenged by the petitioner before any Court, Tribunal or Authority. It would clearly appear from the records that the petitioner was not allowed to join in the year 1979 and, therefore, the cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1979. The records also show that certain letters as mentioned in the return and referred to above were sent to the petitioner but despite service of such letters petitioner did not propose to join nor even challenged the contents of the said letters. It is to be seen that the letters were issued on 27. 7. 79, 5. 11. 79, 28. 12. 79 and 4. 3. 80. After refusing the petitioner to join on earlier occasion if the department was asking the petitioner to join that too by the letter dated 27. 7. 79 i. e. within two months from the date of expiry of the earned leave then the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that he was not permitted to join. ( 6. ) ASSUMING the petitioner was making certain representations to the authorities but submission of repeated representations would not provide any solace in favour of the petitioner because the cause of action had already accrued in favour of the petitioner on issuance of the letter by the Chief Medical Health Officer and the limitation started. Undisputedly the limitation to file the petition before the Tribunal was one year. Undisputedly the petitioner came to the Tribunal after a lapse of nine years and some months. ( 7. ) TRUE it is that the matter was transferred from the Tribunal to this Court but a simple transfer from the Tribunal to this Court would not make the present petition to be one under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. If the law provided a period of limitation for approaching the particular authority then such limitation had to be adhered to. If the law provided a period of limitation for approaching the particular authority then such limitation had to be adhered to. If the petition before the Tribunal was barred by limitation then the High Court being a successor to hear such petition cannot exercise additional powers and hold that the petition before the Tribunal was within limitation. Once it is held that the petition was barred by limitation then neither the Tribunal nor the High Court can interfere in the matter. ( 8. ) IT is even otherwise to be seen that the question whether the petitioner was allowed or not allowed to join was a question of fact. The learned Single Judge despite holding that the question related to fact did not direct any enquiry but simply observed that in view of the delay in approaching the Tribunal and in view of the delay occasioned in filing the return the services would be taken to be 20 years. In our opinion, such approach is absolutely contrary to law. A delay in approaching the Tribunal certainly would go against the interest of the petitioner and delay on part of the State in filing the return could at best, in case of grant of the petition would entail heavy cost upon the respondent but a delay on part of the State would not allow the Court to supersede the statutory provision relating to limitation. ( 9. ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. It is hereby made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to the pension in accordance with services rendered by him and would also be entitled to retiral benefits, if are available to him, under the Service Rules. The petitioner for purpose of fixation of pension and for his claim relating to retiral benefits may approach the State Government alongwith a copy of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs.