ORDER R.S. Shukla The applicant was working as an Overseer under the Janpad Sabha, Narsinghpur, and was admittedly a specified officer under Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1948. He was compulsorily retired on 17-9-56 by the order of the Chairman, Janpad Sabha, dated 8-9-56 as subsequently ratified by the Administrative Committee. On appeal, the Collector of the district held that the applicant being a specified officer, no appeal was tenable before him vide rules framed under Section 71 (5) of the Local Government Act, 1948. The applicant has now come up in revision against the order of the Collector. The main point urged by the applicant is that the Collector failed to exercise the appellate jurisdiction vested in him under Section 156 ibid. This view is obviously incorrect. As the learned Collector has pointed out, Section 156 will not be applicable if the Act has provided other forum or procedure for the purpose of appeals. So far as the officers of Janpad Sabha is concerned Chapter VIII contains the relevant provisions for them. Section 71 (5) under this Chapter and the rules made there under would, therefore, apply in the instant case and as per Rule 1-A (page 935 of the M.P. Janapada Manual) no appeal could lie to the Collector. I, therefore, see no force in the contention of the applicant. The applicant invited my attention to the provisions of Section 159 of the Local Government Act and wanted me to adjudicate upon the legality or propriety of the action of the Janapada Sabha in compulsorily retiring him from service. In this connection it may be pointed out that the powers of the State Government under Section 159, which have now been delegated to the Board of Revenue, do not envisage an interference with any action or order of the Janapada Sabha as such. Section 159 is limited to "any order passed or as to the regularity of the proceedings of, any officer subordinate to it (State Government) and acting in the exercise of any power conferred on it by or under this Act". The order compulsorily retiring the applicant was not passed by "an officer subordinate to the State Government" but by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee and was subsequently approved by the Committee itself. The order compulsorily retiring the applicant was not passed by "an officer subordinate to the State Government" but by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee and was subsequently approved by the Committee itself. As such, it would not be competent for me under Section 159 ibid to interfere with the order of the Janapada Sabha as it stands. Lastly, the applicant pointed out that 4 months' leave preparatory to his retirement having been refused, he was entitled to avail of the same after retirement under Fundamental Rule 86 and this Court should grant him the relief prayed for in this respect. I am afraid, this, again, is not possible to do for there is nothing in the Local Government Act to warrant an interference by the Board of Revenue in a matter like the grant or refusal of leave. For reasons stated above, I see no force in the revision petition which is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.