Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34706 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2990 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Imtyaz Ahmad,Kalp Dev Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the order dated 25.01.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.11334 of 2021, (Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow, was directed to dispose of the revision of the petitioner which had been filed challenging the order passed by the Competent Authority imposing penalty, as well as the order in appeal dated 10.01.2013, the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 has been passed on the revision of the petitioner dismissing it on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 3. Since the issue of jurisdiction can be decided without calling for a counter affidavit, learned standing counsel states that he is willing to address the Court on the aspect of the jurisdiction without a counter affidavit. Therefore, this case is taken up for disposal. 4. It appears from the record that revision was preferred under Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1999. 5. Rule 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1999 reads as follow:- "13. Revision. -Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may of its own motion or on the representation of concerned Government servant call for the record of any case decided by an authority subordinate to it in the exercise of any power conferred on such authority by these rules; and (a)confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority; or (b)direct that a further inquiry be held in the case, or (c)reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; or (d)make such other order in the case as it may deem fit;" The definition of the word 'Government" is provided in clause (g) of Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules which reads as follow:- "(g) "Government" means the State Government of Uttar Pradesh;" 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that there exists any delegation of the revisional power conferred on the State Government in favour of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue. Such being the case, the revision could only lie before the State Government. 7. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.05.2022 dismissing the revision on the ground of want of jurisdiction, cannot be faulted. Therefore, the order of 13.05.2022 is upheld. 8. However, since a remedy of revision is provided under the aforesaid Rules, 1999, it is for the petitioner, if so advised, to move a revision before the State Government. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Asha (Jayant Banerji, J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad