JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. Instant appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dated 17.9.2013. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant who was appointed as a Peon on 13.8.1980 and after three years of continuous working his services were terminated by serving one month's notice dated 4.8.1983 and after expiry of the said period, the Executive Officer of the respondent vide order dated 5.9.1983 in continuation of earlier notice dated 4.8.1983 intimate that the services stands terminated w.e.f. 3.9.1983. 3. The order dated 5.9.1983 passed by the Establishment came to be challenged by the appellant by filing complaint u/S. 28A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958 before the Prescribed Authority and expressly challenged the order dated 5.9.1983 pursuant to which the decision was taken that his services stood terminated w.e.f. 3.9.1983 in continuation of one month notice dated 4.8.1983. 4. Before the prescribed authority, the respondent raised objection that his services have been terminated vide notice dated 4.8.1983 and subsequent order passed in continuation thereof dated 5.9.1983 is only an intimation regarding execution of the decision taken by the authority terminating service and unless the order dated 4.8.1983 is impugned he is not entitled for any relief and to the dismay of the present appellant the objection prevailed upon the prescribed authority and without examining the dispute on merits, the complaint filed by the appellant u/S. 28A of the Act came to be rejected vide order 29.12.1990 and that was challenged at the instance of the present appellant by filing SBCWP-3994/1991 and that came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.9.1995 on the same premise and order of the prescribed authority was confined observing that the prior notice dated 4.8.1983 was not the subject matter of challenge as such no error has been committed by the prescribed authority in passing order dated 29.12.1990 and that came to be challenged by the appellant by filing DB Civil Special Appeal-694/1995 which was allowed vide order dated 15.2.2007 and while setting the order of ld. Single Judge dated 18.9.1995, the matter was remitted back to be examined on merits. 5. After the matter was remitted back, the same question arose before the ld. Single Judge dated 18.9.1995, the matter was remitted back to be examined on merits. 5. After the matter was remitted back, the same question arose before the ld. Single Judge that if the notice dated 4.8.1983 was not under challenge what would be the effect to the complaint filed at the instance of the appellant before the prescribed authority while examining the validity of final decision in terminating services vide order dated 5.9.1983 and the ld. Single Judge was of the view that since notice dated 4.8.1983 was not the subject matter of challenge before the prescribed authority, in these circumstances, no error has been committed by the prescribed authority in passing order impugned in the instant proceedings and this is the subject matter of challenge in the instant intra court appeal. 6. Mr. Sunil Samdaria, counsel for appellant submits that the first notice dated 4.8.1983 was the information of one month notice effecting termination of service and in continuation of notice dated 4.8.1983, he was informed and communicated vide order dated 5.9.1983 of services stands terminated w.e.f. 3.9.1983 and that subsequent order being in continuation of the earlier notice dated 4.8.1983 effecting termination from a future date that stands merged in the later order dated 5.9.1983 was rightly questioned before the prescribed authority and his grievance has never been examined either by the prescribed authority or by the ld. Single Judge on merits and he is ventilating his grievance for the last 32 years and the finding recorded by the ld. Single Judge in the facts of the instant case is not sustainable in law and requires re-consideration of this Court. 7. Counsel for respondent while supporting the order passed by the prescribed authority and of the ld. Single Judge submits that if the basic order dated 4.8.1983 is not the subject matter of challenge no error was committed by the prescribed authority or the ld. Single Judge which requires consideration. 8. We have heard counsel for respective parties and gone through the material on record. 9. The question which arose for consideration before the ld. Single Judge submits that if the basic order dated 4.8.1983 is not the subject matter of challenge no error was committed by the prescribed authority or the ld. Single Judge which requires consideration. 8. We have heard counsel for respective parties and gone through the material on record. 9. The question which arose for consideration before the ld. Single Judge was as to whether notice dated 4.8.1983 would be an order to be questioned by the appellant before the prescribed authority u/S. 28A of the Act of subsequent decision in continuation effecting termination of services vide order dated 5.9.1983 would be the order in itself by which he could be said to be aggrieved in assailing its validity before the prescribed authority and that has not been examined by the prescribed authority or by the ld. Single Judge of this Court on merits, however, we find that order dated 4.8.1983 was a notice served upon the appellant effecting termination of service after expiry of period of one month which is the requirement of Sec. 28A of the Act and after expiry of period of one month in continuation thereof order was passed dated 5.9.1983 terminating services w.e.f. 3.9.1983 after the earlier notice dated 4.8.1983 being merged and self sufficient composite order terminating services of the appellant to be assailed and indisputably complaint was filed before the prescribed authority assailing the order dated 5.9.1983 and the earlier notice dated 4.8.1983 stood merged in the later order dated 5.9.1983 impugned before the prescribed authority. 10. In our considered view, if the final decision terminating the services of appellant by the authority dated 5.9.1983 was subject matter of is challenge before the prescribed authority, the earlier notice dated 4.8.1983 stood merged and it was expected not to go into hyper technicalities and was expected to examine the issue on merits as to whether the reason assigned in terminating the services on merit was valid & justified but the respondent employee who is running from villar to post for the last 32 years for ventilating his grievance still has not been examined on merits in our considered view, the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 17.9.1983 and so also of the prescribed authority dated 29.12.1990 are not sustainable in law. 11. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order of ld. Single Judge dated 17.9.1983 and so also of the prescribed authority dated 29.12.1990 are not sustainable in law. 11. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order of ld. Single Judge dated 17.9.2013 and so also of prescribed authority dated 29.12.1990 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the prescribed authority under Rajasthan Shops & Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, Ajmer to hear and decide the complaint filed by the appellant on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. 12. Let the parties may appear before the Prescribed Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958, Ajmer on 27.4.2015 at 11.00 AM and looking to the old dispute, it is expected from the prescribed authority to decide the complaint expeditiously as early as possible. Appeal allowed.