Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is a Collection Amin in district Azamgarh. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on 19.11.1999 a major punishment was imposed upon him withholding his one annual increment for ever.

2. Aggrieved by the said order on 8.12.1999, the petitioner preferred an Appeal under Rule 11 of U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short Rules, 1999), before the respondent No. 3. When no decision was taken on the said appeal the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 60625 of 2011 (Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. and others) for a direction upon the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously.

3. From the record it appears that another departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a show-cause notice dated 10.8.2006 to explain as to why he may not be punished for low collection of Government dues. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Having not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner a major punishment was imposed upon him on 23.11.2006 withholding one annual increment and a minor punishment of adverse entry in his Service Book. Dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner preferred another appeal before the appellate authority. When the said appeal was not decided the petitioner preferred another writ petition being Writ Petition No. 61698 of 2011 (Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. and others) for a direction upon the appellate authority to decide the appeal within stipulated time. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the appellate authority to decide the matter expeditiously. In compliance thereof the appellate authority passed an order on 13.1.2012 and has rejected both the appeals of the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority dated 13.1.2012 the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 9960 of 2012 (Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. and others) challenging the appellate order. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy as the petitioner had statutory remedy under Rule 13 of Rules, 1999. A copy of the said order has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. The petitioner has preferred two Revision on 21.3.2012, before the respondent No. 2, which is still pending. Hence, this writ petition with the following relief :

“a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the revisions dated 21.3.2012 of the petitioner pending before the respondent No. 2 (the Secretary (Finance and Revenue) Government of U.P. Lucknow) under Rule 13 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 forthwith.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for the last three years the revision is pending, however, no decision has been taken by the State Government, therefore, the petitioner has no other option except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that under Rule 13 of Rules, 1999 no limitation is provided to decide the revision.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

9. It is a common experience that this Court is flooded with spate of writ petitions seeking similar directions upon the authorities to expedite the Appeal/Revision and Review pending before the Administrative Officer/Quasi Judicial Official/Tribunals. This Court has taken a view in Writ-C No. 3628 of 2014 (Rehan Rasheed Khan v. State of U.P. and others) that Court should not be used as a machinery for a direction to expedite matters pending consideration before the Administrative Officers/Sub-ordinate Courts/Tribunals. This view has been affirmed in Special Appeal No. 200 of 2014 (Rehan Rasheed Khan v. State of U.P. and others). The o