Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned 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 petitioners, who are the employees of Karivellur temple under the control of the second and third respondents, had an initial grievance that though their pay had been correctly fixed, there was some discrepancy in fixing their dearness allowance. On that ground they filed the present writ petition. Later, pending the adjudication of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is said to have been redressed through Ext.P8.
3. Presently, the petitioners filed I.A.15771/14 contending that subsequently the Government has enhanced the Dearness Allowance to 191% from 174%, the said benefit has not been extended to the petitioners. In this regard, the petitioners seem to have filed Ext.P9 W.P.(C)No.971 OF 2014 : 2 :
representation before the fourth respondent. It is the singular grievance of the petitioners that the authorities may consider that Ext.P9 representation in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is further made clear that if the fourth respondent requires, the petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the said authority.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE