AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
14 paragraphs · 256 wordsP. Sam Koshy, J
Counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue came up before the Coordinate Bench on 15.11.2017 and the same has been disposed of
with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 and it was further directed that respondent No.2 shall on
receipt the representation take a prompt decision.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that present writ petition also may be disposed of in similar terms as the grievance raised by the petitioner is
identical.
Given the facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the prayer made by the petitioner to be fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the present writ
petition also is disposed of in similar terms as has been passed in the WPS No. 6005/2017 vide order dated 15.11.2017. Accordingly, the petitioner is at
liberty to move a representation before the respondent No.2, before whom the claim of the previous set of petitions were under process.
On submission of the representation by the petitioner, the respondents shall as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months
shall verify and if the case of the petitioners are similarly to the previous set of petitions or the petitioners in the case of WPS No. 6005/2017, his claim
shall also be processed along with the similarly placed persons, whose writ petitions have already been decided vide orders dated 04.07.2011 and
16.12.2012 in WPS No. 6510/2009 and WA No. 419/2011.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of at the motion stage.