JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioner was serving as a Junior Overseer. His services were terminated by the Superintending Engineer by order dated 28.2.54. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, who vide his order dated 1.2.82 (Annexure-2) set aide the order of the Superintending Engineer and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner and further ordered that the intervening period from 5.4.1959 to 14.3.65 is hereby converted into extra-ordinary leave under Rule 54 of the R.S.R. which will be treated as dins non. The petitioner preferred representations against this order which were not disposed of and ultimately, he filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur on 22.1.83. During the pendency of the appeal, his representations were decided vide Annexure-5, dated 22.9.83. Thereafter, the petitioner sought amendment in his appeal and amendment was allowed When the appeal came up for hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as being barred by time as the appeal had not been filed within time from the date 1.2.82, on which impugned order was passed. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Notices were issued. Reply has been filed by the non petitioners. We have heard arguments and also perused the record. 3. It is true that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.2.82 was barred by time. But the petitioner had made representations against the order dated 1.2.82 which was essential in view of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1971, before filing appeal. Rule 29 reads as under:- "29. Litigation on service matters-No Government servant shall attempt to seek in a Court of Law a decision on grievances arising out of his employment or conditions of service. even in cases where such a remedy is legally admissible, without first taking resort to the normal official channel or redress." 4. If the petitioner would have filed appeal before submitting the representation, misconduct might have been alleged against him for not following Rule 29. The petitioner having filed the representation, was awaiting decision thereon but the Government did not decide the representation and therefore, ultimately, he filed appeal on 1.2.83 During the pendency of the appeal, his representation was decided on 22.9.83 which has also been challenged in appeal by way of amendment and therefore the appeal was well within time. 5. The petitioner having filed the representation, was awaiting decision thereon but the Government did not decide the representation and therefore, ultimately, he filed appeal on 1.2.83 During the pendency of the appeal, his representation was decided on 22.9.83 which has also been challenged in appeal by way of amendment and therefore the appeal was well within time. 5. In this view of the matter, we allow this writ petition and remand the matter to the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, for disposing of the appeal in accordance with law expeditiously.No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******