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, an Assistant Transport Officer in the respondent corporation, had his terminal benefits settled subsequent to his retirement on 30.11.2012. The record reveals that while the petitioner was in service, he availed himself of leave for 'several days' between March 1993 and October 2012. It is the case of the petitioner that though those leave periods were already regularized, despite repeated requests by the petitioner, the leave salary due to him has not been sanctioned and disbursed. In that context, W.P.(c) No. 27500 of 2014 2 the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P2 representation to the respondent corporation. Complaining of its non disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider Exhibit P2 representation of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-