Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners, who are working as Assistant Grade I (Gen) in the first respondent Corporation, have complained to the second respondent through Exhibits P6 to P12 representations that there has been a pay anomaly, as a result of which the petitioners are drawing less than their juniors. Eventually, acting on Exhibits P6 to P12 representations of the petitioners, the second respondent has submitted Exhibit P16 proposal before the first respondent, which is yet to take any action on the issue. It is evident from the record that the second respondent followed the issue by sending Exhibits P17 and P18 reminders as well. Complaining of in-action on the part of the first respondent, the petitioners W.P.(c) No. 27932 of 2014 2 filed the present writ petition.
3. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P16 in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of four months 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/-