Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, 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, who joined on 14.06.1971 as “Sruthy” in Thakazhi Sastha Temple, was in course of time promoted to the category of “Nagaswaram” and eventually made to retire on 30.06.2012, after his attaining the age of superannuation.
3. Acting on the representation of the petitioner, the second respondent issued Exhibit P1 proceedings permitting rectification of anomalies in pay fixation concerning the petitioner while he was in service. Pursuant thereto, the fifth respondent submitted Exhibit P2 report to the second respondent. The third respondent, the audit department, however, raised objections on the ground that an option once exercise could not be altered.
W.P.(c) No. 34482 of 2014 2
4. In the light of the objections raised by the third respondent, the petitioner is said to have filed Exhibit P5 representation before the first respondent Board. Seeking expeditious disposal of the said representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. 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 Board, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P5 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE