Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Mazdoor, has been working for more than six years in Chottanikkara temple for monthly wages of ` 1,500/- with working hours from 5 am to 8 pm. The petitioner's grievance is that though many other daily wage employees have been appointed and paid ` 9000/- per month as salary, the repeated requests of the petitioner for parity in treatment have been declined. In that context, the petitioner is said to have made Exts.P1 and P2 representations before the 2nd respondent. Complaining of their non-
W.P.(C.) No.26799/2014 -2-
consideration, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P1 and P2 representations in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No.26799/2014 -3-