The court's emphasis on the use of mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the petition as a representation and provide a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:

"a.) issue appropriate writ, order or directions in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the admitted dues under the heads of encashed earned leave for 810 days i.e. from 03.03.1986 to 31.05.2006 @ 40 days per year, ration money in terms of letter dated 15.05.1985 of the respondent No.3, clothing allowances and unmarried accommodation allowances as applicable in the case of the petitioner in view of letter dated 24.07.2020 of the respondents alongwith interest @ 24% PA from 23.08.2010 i.e. the order of reinstatement with back wages with all consequential benefits of Ld. Civil Judge passed in the suit of the petitioner till its actual realization;

b) issue appropriate writ, order or directions in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to recalculate the deductions made on account of pay and allowances on the basis of last drawn salary, on the yearly basis from January 1986 to 31.05.2006."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner.

3. Accordingly, in view of the averments made in the present petition as well as submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to treat the present petition of the petitioner as a representation and decide the same within eight weeks from today.

4. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week thereafter with a reasoned order.

5. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications is disposed of.

6. Needless to state that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.