JUDGMENT Heard learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the State-petitioner. 2. Under challenge in this petition is a judgment and order dated 04.09.2014, passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 against the punishment order of censure has been allowed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel has strenuously urged that the punishment order was passed in the year 2003, whereas the claim petition was preferred in the year 2009 and hence in view of the limitation prescribed under the provision contained in U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, the Tribunal could not have proceeded to entertain and hear the petition. 4. We have carefully perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, wherein a finding has been recorded that against the punishment order review was preferred by the respondent no.1 and since no decision on the review was communicated to the respondent no.1, as such, it can not be said that the claim petition filed by the respondent was barred by limitation. 5. The remedy of review against the punishment order is a statutory remedy provided to a Government Employee, who is aggrieved by the punishment order. The said remedy is embodied in Rule 14 of the Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. 6. On the review petition preferred by the respondent no.1, no order was ever communicated to him, as such, it cannot be said that the claim petition preferred by him was barred by limitation. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed.