JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows:- “It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order in the nature of Writing directing the respondents to repay the City Compensatory Allowance to a tune of a Rs.5,220/- for the period April 1998 to August 2000 withheld from the gratuity and directing the respondents to pay the City Compensatory Allowance for my extension period of service, calculated for the period from 01.08.2005 to 31.05.2006 as per the Government Ordinance M.S.No.257 Finance (Allowance II) Department, dated 23.02.1979 and to grant such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is entitled to City Compensatory Allowance as per G.O.Ms.No.257, Finance (Allowances II) Department, dated 23.02.1979. The further case of the petitioner is that since the place, in which he worked namely, Kadupatti Village is situated within 16 kms within from Madurai city limit, he is entitled to City Compensatory Allowance as per G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 23.02.1979. However, instead of paying the said City Compensatory Allowance, the respondents deducted a sum of Rs.5,220/- from the gratuity. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed before this court. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent, in which it is stated that the disputed area, namely Kadupatti village is also included in the list already communicated in the said G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 23.02.1979. The Audit Officer was informed about the admissibility of the City Compensatory Allowance. The said proposal sent by the second respondent is pending before the Audit Officer. 4. It is further stated that the matter has already been taken cognizance and shall be resolved by the Audit Department within a reasonable time. The second respondent also stated that the District Revenue Officer has been directed to furnish the copy of the G.O. with annexure for verification by the Accountant General. Accordingly, The District Revenue Officer through his communication, dated 12.07.2007 had forwarded particulars to the Accountant General. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner's request will be settled soon. 5. Now, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner has not been settled so far. 6. Accordingly, The District Revenue Officer through his communication, dated 12.07.2007 had forwarded particulars to the Accountant General. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner's request will be settled soon. 5. Now, it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner has not been settled so far. 6. As the second respondent had categorically admitted the claim of the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed by him and also made a submission that his request will be settled soon, I only direct the respondents to settle the claim of the petitioner in respect of the City Compensatory Allowance and repay the sum of Rs.5,220/-for the period from April 1998 to August 2000 and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the City Compensatory Allowance for the extension period of service of the petitioner, commencing from 01.08.2005 to 31.05.2006, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if already the same is not settled in favour of the petitioner. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.