Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified -- 75.27 r cwP 7527/00 • about his appointment as Assistant with effect from 29 1950. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is evident from the impugned order, that while coming to the I afore-noted conclusion, the Tribunal has lost sight of the afore-extracted communication dated 16 December 1992. Since the petitioner wasJold that he would be getting the final reply on his representation shortly, Pt1!1la facie, it •I· could not be said that he was not diligent about his rights and had failed to take recourse to appropriate remedy at the right time. 6. At this stage Mr.Shakdhar, learned counsel for responqents 1 & 2 would submit that since the order of the Tribunal is silent about these facts, the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh deciSion on the question of limitation. We find substance in the suggestion of learned counsel for the respondents. I' 7. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition; set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to reconsider the issue of limitation afresh, keeping in view the afore-noted facts. Having regard to the peculiar'facts of the case, the age of the petitioner and not to prolong the life of litigation further, the Tribunal may also consider deciding the original application on merj·ts. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. MADAN B. LOKUR, J MARCH 20, 2003 "v" Ii