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, an Assistant Engineer (Electrical), having joined the service on 15.06.2004, is said to be still continuing on a temporary basis in the first respondent Board. Though other employees who are much juniors to the petitioner had their services regularized based on judicial directives, on account of the petitioner's not approaching the Court, his services are yet to be regularized.
3. The petitioner contends that since he approached the Court at a later point of time, the proceedings initiated by him are pending before the Honourable Supreme Court, as well as this Court.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that while juniors to him have been drawing all service benefits, the petitioner has been denied them without any justification. It seems, W.P.(c) No. 33379 of 2014 2 ventilating his grievance, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P6 representation to the respondents 1 and 2. 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, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Exhibit P6 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 observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-