Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 27.03.2014, in rejecting the review application filed by the petitioner to review the order of removal passed as early as on 07.06.1964. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. In this case, the petitioner who was working as a Fireman Driver, was removed from service on 07.06.1964. 4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 24.08.1964, before the District Fire Officer, Palayamkottai. The appellate authority through his proceedings in P.R.No.1/64 dated 19.03.1964, withheld the appeal by stating that the appeal petition was time barred. The said order was also communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner after a period of fifty years, filed a petition seeking to review the order of the punishment through the applications, dated 09.10.2013 and 18.11.2013. The said request of the petitioner seeking for review, was rejected through the impugned order dated 27.03.2014. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal was only 17 days and therefore, the authorities are not entitled to withhold the appeal and also not entitled to reject the review application filed by the petitioner seeking to review the order of punishment. According to the learned Counsel, under the relevant rules, the petitioner is entitled to get the pension once the order of punishment is set aside and reinstated in service. 6. I am unable to appraise the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that the entire action initiated by the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation. 7. Admittedly, he was removed from service as early as on 07.06.1964 and he preferred an appeal on 24.08.1964. The appellate authority refused to entertain the appeal and held it as withheld as the appeal is time barred. As the order came to be passed on 01.09.1964 the petitioner ought to have challenged the said order then and there. On the other hand, he kept quiet for 49 years and thereafter, suddenly, he filed the review application, seeking to review the order of punishment. 8. I failed to understand as to how the petitioner is justified in seeking to review the order after such a long period of 49 yrs. On the other hand, he kept quiet for 49 years and thereafter, suddenly, he filed the review application, seeking to review the order of punishment. 8. I failed to understand as to how the petitioner is justified in seeking to review the order after such a long period of 49 yrs. It is well settled that a person should be vigilant and approach the authorities within a reasonable time to seek any remedy. If he is not vigilant and slept over the matter for 49 years, he cannot be given any indulgence. Hence, I find that the order impugned in this writ petition does not warrant any interference by this Court and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.