IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 17894 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th July, 2011. Babu Ram Dubey Petitioner through Mr. H.K.Sharma, Advocate Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents through Mr. G.S.Bal, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.02.2009 [Annexure P-11] whereby punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed and it has been further up-held by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.09.2009 [Annexure P-13]. No sooner the case was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is revisable under Rule 25 of the Railway Servants [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, 1968. Learned counsel for the respondents has also come up with a fair stand that in case the petitioner files a revision petition within some reasonable period, the revisional authority shall decide the same on merits instead of treating the same as time barred. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision petition within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The Revisional Authority is directed to decide the same on merits by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date the revision is filed. If still aggrieved, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek redressal of his grievance before an appropriate forum. Disposed of. Dasti. July 14, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE