JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to pay forthwith the arrears of salary for the period from 01.11.2001 to 27.07.2002 and the benefits of the 01st and the 02nd A.C.P. 2. Counter affidavit as well as the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 has been filed, wherein, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of salary for the period from 04.11.2001 to 27.07.2002 has been rejected by the respondents vide Memo No. 595, dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure-C). 3. A reply on behalf of the petitioner, dated 03.05.2018, has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that an Appeal has been preferred before the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar, Palamau vide Annexure-12 to the said affidavit. 4. Heard Mrs. Gouri Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sunil Singh, learned A.C. to S.C. (Mines) appearing for the Respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a direction would be issued to the respondent no. 2 (appellate authority) to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, then the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has no serious objection to that course of action. However, he submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is grossly time-barred. 7. However, without entering into the nitty-gritty of the claim and the counter claim of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the appeal, if not already disposed of, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/communication of a copy of the order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the appellate authority shall be at liberty to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.