1. Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. In present petition the petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief/s:-
"9(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondent Municipality to decide the representations made by the petitioner at Annexre "A" collectively to the petition.
(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent Municipality to grant the benefits likewise the other employees as per the judgment dated 29.11.2001 passed in Special Civil Application No.8810 of 1989 at Annexure "B" to the petition.
(C).........
(D)....."
3. The facts involved in petition are that the original petitioner was appointed as "Clerk" in January 1986, in Octroi Department of the respondent Municipality. Subsequently in 1993 the service of the petitioner came to be regularized. It appears from the record that at certain point of time some of the employees of the respondent Municipality had approached this Court by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8810 of 1989. The said petition was admitted without any order of interim relief. Subsequently Letters Patent Appeal No.348 of 1990 was filed against order denying interim relief. The Appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench holding that the respondent Municipality may consider payment of minimum time scale to the clerks w.e.f. May 1991. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the petitioner appears to have approached the respondent Municipality for grant of difference amount as has been granted to other similarly situated employees. Since request of the petitioner is not accepted the petitioner made various representations. The petitioner also made grievance in present petition that the respondent Municipality is not taking any decision in connection with the request made by the petitioner. In this background the petitioner has also mentioned that he is likely to retire in December 2012. In such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed for above mentioned relief.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the relief prayed for in paragraph No.9(A) of present petition, it appears that present petition can be disposed of with below mentioned observations:-
(A) The Competent Authority shall take up the representation of present petitioner for consideration and appropriate orders and pass necessary and appropriate orders in accordance with its rule applicable at the relevant time and also after taking into account the observations by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.348 of 1990 and also the order dated 29.11.2001 passed in Special Civil Application No.8810 of 1989.
(B) Having regard to the said aspect the Competent Authority shall pass necessary and appropriate orders within 4 weeks from the receipt of certified copy of present order.
(C) In addition to normal mode of service through office the petitioner is permitted to serve certified copy of present order.
(D) Within four weeks from service of certified copy of this order Competent Authority shall pass appropriate reasoned order with regard to the request made by the petitioner.
(E) The reasoned order shall be conveyed to the petitioner without any delay.
In view of the aforesaid observations and directions learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner does not press for relief prayed for in paragraph 9(B) at this stage.
With the aforesaid clarification the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top