JUDGMENT K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. 1. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The respondent herein filed the Writ Petition challenging the orders passed against him in the disciplinary proceedings, which finally resulted in discharge of the petitioner from service. Ext. P3 is the order, as per which he was removed from service by the 2nd appellant. He filed an appeal before the 3rd appellant Chief of the Army Staff. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext. P8. The petitioner claimed, he filed Ext. P9 revision against Ext. P8 before the Government, but no action was taken on it. In the above background, this Writ Petition was filed, challenging, inter alia, Exts. P3 and P8 and also seeking a further direction to the Central Government to consider Ext. P9. The case was posted for instructions several times to find out whether Ext. P9 was received and pending. In the absence of any instructions being furnished by the appellants to the Assistant Solicitor General, finally, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Government to consider and pass orders on Ext. P9. The Writ Appeal is filed raising the following contentions. i) This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the grievance of the 1st respondent as the cause of action for the same arose beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. ii) No representation or revision will lie against Ext. P8 before the Central Government under S.26(5) of the Army Act. iii) It is submitted that it is impossible for the Defence Secretary to hear all the representations that may be filed by the personnel under the Army, who are not officers, and who may feel aggrieved by the order of the Chief of the Army Staff. 2. We notice that the 1st respondent / writ petitioner is a dismissed employee of the army. If Ext. P9 revision is maintainable under law, the Central Government's inaction will give a cause of action for the respondent / petitioner to approach this Court to seek a mandamus for the disposal of the same, at the earliest. Since the Union of India functions throughout the territory of India, its inaction in relation to an appeal filed from Kerala by the respondent will definitely give jurisdiction to this Court to entertain a prayer for mandamus to compel the Central Government to consider Ext. P9. Since the Union of India functions throughout the territory of India, its inaction in relation to an appeal filed from Kerala by the respondent will definitely give jurisdiction to this Court to entertain a prayer for mandamus to compel the Central Government to consider Ext. P9. Regarding the 2nd point that under S.26(5) no revision will lie against Ext. P8, we notice that no such contention was raised before the learned Single Judge. The appellants herein were also not even able to submit whether Ext. P9 was received or pending. 3. A close reading of S.26(5) may create some doubt whether an order in the nature of Ext. P8 could be challenged by moving the Government. But, the Government can issue appropriate directions to the Chief of the Army Staff in view of the provisions contained under Art.53(2) of the Constitution of India. So, the contention of the appellants that the Government have no power to deal with Ext. P9 cannot be accepted. The Government finds, if there are valid grounds for intervention, we are sure the Government can issue appropriate directions to the Chief of the Army Staff to redress the grievance of the respondent / petitioner. 4. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge need not be taken as a direction to the Defence Secretary for personal hearing and disposal of Ext. P9. It is only a direction to the Central Government. Decision can be taken in the manner provided in the Rules of business governing such decisions by the Government. In other words, they need not be any personal hearing by the Defence Secretary himself and a personal order passed by the said officer himself. 5. In view of the above decision, we find no reason to entertain this Writ Appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed subject to the above clarification regarding the personal hearing and disposal of Ext. P9. The decision as directed by the learned Single Judge may be taken within three months from today.