Judgment :- The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner is the non consideration of the representations made by the petitioner on different dates. The last one in that regard was dated 18. 2005. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is an Association of Technical Supervisory Staff, who are working as middle level Technical Officers, such as Assistant Cane Officer, Assistant Engineer (Mech.), etc. The members of the petitioners Association have been receiving Government Dearness Allowance from 4. 1991. The second respondent revised the pay scale of the Technical Supervisory staff and gave dearness allowance as applicable to the Government employees, who are employed in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The second respondent has been continuing with this pattern of dearness allowance, since 1991. The same was granted to the members of the petitioner Association, after taking into consideration the nature of the work and qualification, which was similar to their counterparts, who are working in the State of Tamil Nadu. The change in GDA was brought in the State of Tamil Nadu pursuant to the orders of this court. The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent to extend the same benefit in the Union Territory of Pondicherry also. The second respondent, after considering the representation, found it fit to grant the same benefit to the members of the petitioners Association. The second respondent is continuing the GDA pattern till date, which was originally done. The first respondent has formed a two member committee for considering the service conditions, which was prevailing in the second respondent Mills. The two member committee gave a suggestion to change the present pattern of GDA to that of Variable Dearness Allowance, which was applicable to the workers and clerical staff, who are covered under Sugar Wage Board. The same suggestion was also made in the State of Tamil Nadu for changing the GDA to the technical supervisory staff. Aggrieved by the action of the Government, the similar Association in the State of Tamil Nadu filed a writ petition and interim orders have been issued. Following the same, representations were made by the petitioners Association on many times and the last one was given on 18. 2005 and they remained unconsidered yet. Under these circumstances, a direction has got to be issued. 3. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Following the same, representations were made by the petitioners Association on many times and the last one was given on 18. 2005 and they remained unconsidered yet. Under these circumstances, a direction has got to be issued. 3. The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. In appraisement of the facts and circumstances of the case, the court is of the considered opinion that it would be fit and proper to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, as stated above, as expeditiously as possible and pass suitable orders thereon. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected WPMP is closed.