Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is a collection Amin. He has instituted this writ proceeding for a direction to the second respondent-Collector, district Gautam Budh Nagar to decide his appeal within a stipulated time.

2. Essential facts are that petitioner was initially appointed as collection Amin in the year 1997. While he was posted at Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar, he was placed under suspension on 10.1.2001 and disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him. Charge-sheet was served upon him on 10.2.2001 and after completion of the disciplinary proceedings, major punishment was imposed on him of withholding three annual increments permanently and it was also provided that he would not be paid any salary during the suspension period. Services of the petitioner are governed under statutory Rule namely U.P. Collection Amin’s Service Rules,1974. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 11 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,1999, before the second respondent on 25.7.2001.

Grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of several applications for disposal of his appeal, the same is still pending before the second respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no justifiable reason for keeping his appeal pending for the last more than 15 years and he has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in the case of Tilakdhari Ram v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 49235 of 2015, decided on 1.9.2015).

4. Learned standing counsel submits that this Court may issue direction to the District Magistrate to decide the appeal within a reasonable time.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner claims that he has filed appeal on 25.7.2001. Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules provides that against the order of disciplinary authority, appeal lies to the next higher authority. Rule 11 is extracted hereinunder :

“11. Appeal :(1) Except the orders passed under these rules by the Governor, the Government servant shall be entitled to appeal to the next higher authority from an order passed by the disciplinary authority.

(2) The appeal shall be addressed and submitted to the appellate authority. A Government servant preferring an appeal shall do so in his own name. The appeal shall contain all material statements and arguments relied upon by the appellant.

(3) The appeal shall not contain any intemperate language. Any appeal, which contains such language may be liable to be summarily dismissed.

(4) The appeal shall be preferred within 90 days from the date of communication of impugned order. An appeal preferred after the said period shall be dismissed summarily.

Against the order of the appellate authority, Rule 13 of the 1999 Rules provides a revision to the State Government and Rule 14 further provides review before the Governor.

7. From the reading of Rule 11, it is evident that its sub clause (4) provides 90 days’ limitation for filing of the appeal but it does not provide any time limit within which the appeal has to be decided.

Although no time limit has been provided under Rule 11 to decide the appeal, it is a trite that if no period is provided in the statute, then Tribunal/appellate authority/authority concerned should take decision within a reasonable time. “Reasonable time” is not defined under the Rules. P. Ramnatha Aiyar’s “The Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition”, defines reasonable time as under :

“Reasonable time”: That is a reasonable time that preserves to each party the rights and advantages he possesses and protects each party from losses that he ought not to suffer.

“Reasonable time” is defined to be so much time as is necessary, under the circumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done in a particular case.

If it is proper to attempt any definition of the words “reasonable time” as applied to completion of a contract, the distinction given by Chief