JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. The petitioners were Class-IV employees of the Nagar Panchayat Bachchravan, district Raebareli. Their services have been terminated vide order dated 19.08.2014. 2. It is stated that they had preferred a statutory appeal under Section 318 of Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 on 30.08.2014. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that their appeal is still pending for the last 2 years. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 5. The services of the petitioners are governed under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999. Under the said Rules, appeal lies to the Appellate Authority, the sub-rule 4 of Rule 11 provides that the appeal shall be preferred within 90 days from the communication of the order. 6. It is true that no time limit has been provided under the Rule 11 to decide the appeal but it is a trite that when no time limit is provided under the Rules then the authority should decide it within a reasonable time. The word reasonable time has been considered by the Supreme Court in large no. of cases. It has been held that if no time limit is fixed then three months is the reasonable time. This Court in the case of Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (10) ADJ 646 has taken a judicial note that in the State of Uttar Pradesh the appellate and revisional authorities ordinarily do not pass the order within a reasonable time so appeals remain pending for a considerable long time. 7. In the present case the appeal is also pending for more than 2 years. Hence, in my view, the ends of the justice is required that direction be issued upon the District Magistrate who is appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously but not later than 3 months from the date of communication of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.