Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 1 to regularise the service of the petitioner as Driver. Alternatively, prayer of the petitioner is to allow 20% of the pay for carrying the higher responsibility of the pay for carrying the higher responsibility of the post of driver. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was appointed as a Safai Mazdoor. By memo dated 30.12.1991 of the Assistant Health Officer, petitioner was asked to work as the incharge driver on the same terms and conditions. When the petitioner was not given the salary in the pay scale of the driver or 20% of the pay for doing the additional work of driver, he filed CWJC No. 2611 of 1998 before this Court claiming the aforesaid relief and other reliefs. As regards the reliefs claimed in the present application this Court by its order dated 17.3.1999 observed as follows: "With respect to the 3rd relief, as prayed, the petitioner is permitted to represent before the administrator in the light of the settled law which, if made, shall be considered and disposed of by the Administrator of the Corporation in accordance with law within the aforesaid time." 3. It is the stand of the petitioner that till date no decision has been taken and the petitioner is not being paid the salary of the driver or 20% allowance. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent-Patna Municipal Corporation in which it has been stated that the petitioner was made incharge driver by the Assistant Health Officer on the terms and conditions of his substantive appointment on the post of Safai Mazdoor and he was not competent to pass such order. However, in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration. 5. From the pleading of the party one thing is clear that the petitioner who holds a substantive post of Safai Mazdoor is performing the work of incharge driver. By order dated 17.3.1999 the respondent-Corporation was directed to take decision in regard to the relief claimed in the present application. Undisputedly no such decision has been taken. 6. Having heard Mr. Kamla Lal Srivastava for the petitioner and Mr. By order dated 17.3.1999 the respondent-Corporation was directed to take decision in regard to the relief claimed in the present application. Undisputedly no such decision has been taken. 6. Having heard Mr. Kamla Lal Srivastava for the petitioner and Mr. K.D. Choudahry for the respondent-Corporation and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it expedient that the respondents take decision in regard to the relief claimed by the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt /production of a copy of this order. The decision shall be taken by a reasoned order and shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. While taking the said decision, respondent-Corporation shall bear in mind that the petitioner is performing the work of the driver on the basis of an order passed by its own functionary. 7. Needless to state that in case the decision goes adverse to the petitioner, he shall have opportunity to assail the same in accordance with law. 8. Writ application stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.