JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, Dr. Jaswant Singh Chaudhary, the petitioner seeks to quash the judgment dated 24.3.1988 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected his appeal. In the alternative it has been prayed that while quashing the impugned judgment, the matter may be sent back to the Tribunal for its decision afresh on merits. 2. The facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition as alleged by the petitioner are that he was appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in the year 1957 on temporary basis and was confirmed w.e.f. 6th April, 1964. The petitioner tendered his resignation from service for contesting elections of Raj. Legislative Assembly on 11.1.1967, which was at up to. On his request for re-consideration of the resignation, he was appointed afresh vide order dated 2nd August, 1967 and the break-in-service between 12.1.1967 to 23.12.1968 was condoned by the Government vide order dated 3rd Feb. 1971. The petitioner second time tendered resignation from service w.e.f. 31.12.1970. He was informed vide communication dated 30.1.1971 that his resignation was not acceptable as required notice was not given. Since no action was taken, ultimately the petitioner withdrew his resignation and reported to Distt. Medical and Health Officer, Jodhpur who posted the petitioner on 31st March, 1971 at PHC, Salawas. The petitioner again moved an application to relieve him from duties on 27.12.1971 before the Distt. Medical and Health Officer and he was relieved on 12.1.72. It is also alleged that he moved an application for regularisation of his service from 1.1.71 to 11.3.71 which was accepted vide order dated 25.2.75 passed by the Director, Medical and Health Services. The petitioner made a representation to the Government on 25.7.77 to join back service of the Government but the same was turned down on 19.9.77. Thereafter, as alleged by the petitioner again on 14.9.77 the petitioner made one more representation and on the basis of representation the Director, Medical and Health Services wrote a letter to the Secretary, Medical and Health Department on 17.9.77 (Annex. 4). Vide letter dated 8.1.88, the Government informed that except the question of payment of the period between 21.1.67 to 23.12.68, which became due on regularisation of break-in-service, nothing was due to the appellant and no matter is pending consideration with the Government. 4). Vide letter dated 8.1.88, the Government informed that except the question of payment of the period between 21.1.67 to 23.12.68, which became due on regularisation of break-in-service, nothing was due to the appellant and no matter is pending consideration with the Government. Being aggrieved with the letter dated 8.1.88 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Tribunal after hearing and considering the reply filed by the Government rejected the appeal. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 24.3.1988 Dr. Jaswant Singh Chaudhary, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 19.11.93 and has come up before us on 10.1.94. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record as also the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Sualal Yadav v. State of Raj. & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 2050 ) relied by Mr. Mridul. 5. It has been contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal holding that it was time barred as in this case the limitation for filing appeal commenced from 8.1.88 whereas the petitioner filed appeal on 24.3.88. In the letter dated 8.1.88 issued by the Dy. Secretary to the Government, it has been stated that Dr. Jaswant Singh Chaudhary no longer remained a member of the State Service after 12.1.72 and that the services of the petitioner for the period 12.1.67 to 23.12.68 have been regularised and if all amount is due on that account that may be paid. Further that no matter pertaining to Dr. Chaudhary was called for the decision of the Government. From a bare perusal of the said letter, it is apparently clear that except the payment for the period 12.1.67 to 23.12.68 nothing was due and that too has been paid. So far as the claim of the petitioner that prior to the impugned letter dated 8.1.88 his matter was under consideration with the Government, it is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted an application dated 27.12.1971 (Annex. 3) stating that "I humbly request your honour to arrange payment of the salary and legitimate dues of the undersigned till date and relieve from the duties". This application was forwarded by the Distt. 3) stating that "I humbly request your honour to arrange payment of the salary and legitimate dues of the undersigned till date and relieve from the duties". This application was forwarded by the Distt. Medical and Health Officer to the Director, Medical and Health Department, who informed the DMHO vide Annex. 3 dated 10.1.72 that the Government have already conveyed approval and acceptance of Dr. J.S. Chaudhary's notice for being relieved he may be relieved subject to the condition that no Govt. dues are outstanding against him. As no dues were outstanding against him, the petitioner was relieve on 12.1.72. On 17.2.77 the petitioner made a representation to the Government for the payment of salary for the period 1.4.71 to 12.1.1972. Thereafter on 25.7.77, the petitioner made another representation requesting that he is willing to join the services if taken back in service. Admittedly in both these representations, he did not challenge the action of the Departmental Authorities relieving him on 12.1.72. More so, the said two representations were also rejected by the Government. The petitioner made some more representations but they were pertaining to regularisation and payment for the period 1.1.71 to 11.3.71 and 15.3.71 to 12.1.72. Under these circumstances, the learned Member of the Tribunal have rightly observed that the appellant cannot raise objection now against the validity of order dated 10.1.72 when he accepted it and acted upon it and did not object to it uptill 1977 and thereafter he did not take any action to challenge this order upto 1988 when he filed this appeal. Therefore, once having accepted the relieving order after a great delay of 16 years, the petitioner cannot challenge the order dated 10.1.72 relieving him from service, which was passed on his own request. 6. It has been next contended that the order dated 10.1.72 relieving him from the service is illegal as no approval or acceptance was conveyed by the Government. The learned Tribunal while considering this contention has observed that the issue of relieving him from Government Service whether legally or illegally raised in this appeal is highly belated. It has also been observed that once the appellant has accepted the order and acted upon it by accepting the relieving order and never raised any objection against it prior to 1977 the contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant becomes irrelevant. It has also been observed that once the appellant has accepted the order and acted upon it by accepting the relieving order and never raised any objection against it prior to 1977 the contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant becomes irrelevant. In view of this, we are of the opinion, that the legality of the order dated 10.1.72 cannot be examined at this stage particularly when the Government in its reply has categorically stated that since the appellant was pressing hard to relieve him the oral approval of the Government was obtained and the appellant himself was present when the order was issued and received the copy on the same day at Jaipur. More so to controvert the same no material was placed by the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 10.1.72 is illegal, is devoid of any force. 7. So far as the contention of Mr. Mridul that no decision was given by the Government on the points referred to it by the Director, Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide letter dated 17.9.77 (Annex. 4) is concerned, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner out of this letter in view of the fact that paras 1 to 8 is narration of facts. In Para 8 of Annex, 4 it is clearly mentioned that on the request being made by Dr. Chaudhary, he has been removed from service from 12.1.72. Furthermore in Annex. 4 after mentioning paras 1 to 8, in para 9 the Director has mentioned that "now the question remains that salary is to be paid to Dr. Chaudhary for the period 15.3.71 to 12.1.72 for which Dr. Chaudhary is pressing hard. That apart merely on the basis of this letter, which has no legal sanctity the petitioner cannot take any advantage. Therefore, this contention is also not sustainable particularly when the representation dated 17.2.77 and 22.5.77 made by the petitioner earlier for the payment of the dues only were rejected. 8. Under these circumstances, the case cited by the counsel for the petitioner reported in AIR 1977 SC-2050 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, this contention is also not sustainable particularly when the representation dated 17.2.77 and 22.5.77 made by the petitioner earlier for the payment of the dues only were rejected. 8. Under these circumstances, the case cited by the counsel for the petitioner reported in AIR 1977 SC-2050 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As discussed above, the relieving order was not challenged at any point of time earlier by the petitioner nor any representations was made, further earlier representations made for the payment of dues were rejected, therefore, now the same cannot be challenged in the garb of the impugned communication which merely informs that no matter is pending consideration of Govt. and in the guise of challenging. So far as the case cited by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case review application was dismissed by the Governor on merits, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that review application was made to the Governor after a lapse of about two years which was unreasonable. Therefore, their lordships of Supreme Court while allowing the appeal observed that it was not open to the High Court to resurrect the ground of delay in the review application at a remote stage and make it a ground for dismissing the writ petition when the reviewing authority has entertained the belated review application. Such is not the position in the present case as discussed above, so the decision of Sualal Yadav's case (supra) is not of any help to the petitioner. 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed *******