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, having joined the service of the 1st respondent authority on 17.02.2006 as Lower Division Clerk, had his promotion as Upper Division Clerk on 26.8.2011 along with 108 other persons. Prior to the petitioner was given promotion, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.6354/2012, which was disposed of through Ext.P4 judgment with a direction to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner to re-assign the seniority and promote him to the next post. In that context the petitioner was promoted as UDC on 26.08.2011. Since the 1st respondent refused to grant any monetary benefit not withstanding the re-assignment of seniority with effect from 01.11.2008, the petitioner is said to have W.P.(C) No.25428 of 2014
2
submitted Ext.P5 representation through proper channel to the 1st respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the authorities have actively been seized of the issue, and as such, at this juncture, it is not necessary to have any adjudication of the issue on merits.
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 respondents, without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, 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.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
sj