JUDGMENT Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. – By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought following reliefs: - i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.8.2009 passed by opposite party no. 1, U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') contained as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.8.1996 and 6.1.1997 both passed by the opposite party no. 3 and order dated 24.3.2009 passed by opposite party no. 2 with all consequential benefits. iii)To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to create any impediment in to the clean and smooth service route/promotion of the petitioner on the basis of impugned orders dated 17.8.1996 and 6.1.1997 passed by opposite party no. 3 and 24.3.2009 passed by opposite party no. 2 in the interest of justice. 2. The Tribunal vide order impugned dated 13.8.2009 dismissed the Claim Petition bearing no. 1267 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner as barred by limitation. 3. Brief facts for deciding this petition are that petitioner Lalji Tiwari was posted as Deputy Excise Inspector in Sugar Mill, Laxmiganj, Padrauna, District Deoria (Now District Kushinagar). He was placed under suspension vide order dated 28.11.1995. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet was issued to him. After conclusion of the departmental inquiry the petitioner was punished under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 vide order dated 17.8.1996 by opposite party no. 2 withholding four permanent increments with cumulative effect. Against the order of punishment petitioner preferred a representation before opposite party no. 3, which was rejected vide order dated 6.1.1997. Against the order of punishment dated 17.8.1996 the petitioner filed statutory appeal before opposite party no. 2 on 13.10.2008, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.3.2009 as barred by time observing that it has been filed after 12 years from the date of filing of appeal i.e. 13.10.2008. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2009 and the order dated 6.1.1997 the petitioner preferred claim petition no. 1267 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed as barred by limitation on 13.8.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.2009 and the order dated 6.1.1997 the petitioner preferred claim petition no. 1267 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed as barred by limitation on 13.8.2009. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that limitation prescribed for preferring the claim petition under section 5 of U.P Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') is one year. He drew the attention of this court towards sub clause (1) (b) (i) (ii) of section 5 of of U.P Public Services ( Tribunal) Act, which are reproduced as under: - "(i) notwithstanding the period of limitation prescribed in the scheduled to the said Act, the period of limitation for such reference shall be one year. (ii) in computing the period of limitation the period beginning with the date on which a public servant makes a representation or prefers an appeal, revision or any other petition (not being a memorial to the Governor), in accordance with the rules or orders regulating his condition of service and ending with the date on which such public servant has knowledge of the final order passed on such representation, appeal, revision or petition, as the case may be, shall be excluded." 6. The order impugned passed by the Tribunal on 13.8.2009 reads as under: - "List revised. Still none is present for the petitioner. `Office has raised an objection that the petition is barred by limitation. On perusal of the record, we also find that the claim petition is highly bared by limitation. It is dismissed as barred by limitation." 7. From the perusal of the said order, it appears that the same has been passed in absence of the petitioner and on the basis of endorsement made by the office regarding limitation. It is also obvious that order impugned was passed without assigning any reason and is a cryptic order. 8. The period of limitation under section 5 of the Act shall be reckoned from the date when the statutory appeal, representation, revision or petition is filed against the order of punishment. However, the period spent in deciding the representation, appeal, revision or petition shall be excluded. 8. The period of limitation under section 5 of the Act shall be reckoned from the date when the statutory appeal, representation, revision or petition is filed against the order of punishment. However, the period spent in deciding the representation, appeal, revision or petition shall be excluded. Apart from it, the date of communication of order to the government servant passed on his representation, appeal, revision or petition shall also be important for calculating the period of limitation. 9. The Tribunal after taking note of endorsement made by the office dismissed the claim petition preferred by the petitioner as barred by limitation without going into factual matrix of the case. The Tribunal was under obligation to consider the grounds of the petitioner in regard to limitation and must have assigned the reason for not accepting the grounds. Moreover, the Tribunal must have evaluated the order of appellate authority in the light of plea raised in the appeal filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay. 10. It is also not clear from the record as well as from the order impugned as to whether the petitioner has moved any application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. If the application was moved separately for condoning the delay, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to deal with the application for condonation of delay on the basis of material available on record which the appellate authority cannot do. 11. Admittedly, the claim petition before Tribunal has been filed within time from the date of order passed in appeal, hence, we are of the view that order impugned dated 13.08.2009 passed by the Tribunal shall not be allowed to sustain and is liable to be set aside. 12. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2009 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 1267/2009 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to pass speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.