JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has approached the present Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the order, bearing No. TCIL/11/001/3631/09/PER, dated 15.04.2009 of the second respondent and to quash the same. Further, he has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the first respondent to consider his appeal, dated 01.01.2011 for inclusion of his earlier service in the Department of Telecommunications and regularise his service on par with his juniors/batch mate and grant all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner joined a service of D.O.T as on 24.08.1982 as DRM, before he was deputed to TCIL during January 1988. He is continuously working in TCIL and so far put in 31 years of service. During his tenure of service in TCIL, he was regularised as ACT-IV only on 23.07.1997 as per TCIL's appointment order in reference No. TCIL/11/3/39/PER, dated 03.07.1997 in the scale of pay of Rs.2150-2800, IDA. At present, he is working as ACT-1, to which post he was promoted with effect from 09.09.2008 by the order of the second respondent, dated 09.09.2008. However, he was not regularised with effect from the date of his batch mate due to non inclusion of his service in D.O.T at the time of his regularization in TCIL. 3. The stand of the petitioner is that all his batch mates who joined in the Department of Telecommunications in the year 1982, who has sent like him on deputation during the year 1988 and subsequently repatriated to D.O.T were appointed as temporary regular Mazdoor with effect from 1992 in D.O.T and regularised as ACT – III. However, he was regularised as Act-IV. 4. When he worked as casual Mazdoor during the period 1998 to 1990, he was required to work as Technician which was 5 grades above and from 1990 to 1997. He was a casual Mazdoor ACT IV. Also, he was asked to work as Field Foreman which was 7 grades above and from 1997 to 2008 when he was posted as ACT IV / ACT III / ACT II / ACT I. He required to work as Project Co-ordinator Managerial Cadre from 2008 till date. When he was posted as ACT 1, he was asked to work as Project in Charge BSNL Works, Managerial Cadre. 5. His batch mates got regularization in the year 1992. When he was posted as ACT 1, he was asked to work as Project in Charge BSNL Works, Managerial Cadre. 5. His batch mates got regularization in the year 1992. At that point of time, he was working on foreign project in Suadi Arabia and made several representations from there questioning why his name was left out in the regularisation. There were some more similar cases for which the respondent had issued letter as early as on 23.12.1996 asking for all the documentary proof for his earlier service in DOT prior to his joining TCIL for the purpose of regularisation in TCIL together with other officials. He has also given some documentary proof, but the respondents have not taken any further action. 6. He made several representations (including the representation, dated 18.11.2006) to the respondents to regularise the service on par with his junior and grant all consequential benefits. The union also sent earlier representation to the respondents for which the respondent had issued letter as early as 23.12.1996 to send all the documentary proof for the purpose of regularisation in TCIL. However, on 15.04.2009, the second respondent issued an order rejecting his request without assigning any reasons whatsoever for giving weightage for his service in erstwhile DOT. Being satisfied with the order of the second respondent, dated 15.04.2009, he projected an Appeal to the second respondent (through proper channel). However, the first respondent till date has not passed any orders. On 04.01.2011, the General Manager (SR), issued a letter to the first respondent recommending his case while considering the appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the second respondent and non passing of the order on Appeal by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. 7. At this stage of hearing of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner is restricting his relief only to the aspect of his Appeal, dated 01.01.2011 has to be considered by the first respondent in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. 8. 7. At this stage of hearing of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner is restricting his relief only to the aspect of his Appeal, dated 01.01.2011 has to be considered by the first respondent in the manner known to law and in accordance with law. 8. A perusal of the contents of the Appeal, dated 01.01.2011 of the petitioner addressed to the first respondent / TCIL, New Delhi (through proper channel) indicates that he has only made a rightful claim for due weightage to be given for his service in the erstwhile DOT and in fact, the said representation contains quantitative and qualitative particulars. 9. In view of the limited request on behalf of the petitioner made before this Court that the first respondent may be directed to consider his Appeal Petition, dated 01.01.2011, this Court on the basis of fair play, equity, and even as a matter of prudence directs the first respondent to consider the Appeal Petition of the petitioner, dated 01.01.2011 in a fair, just and dispassionate manner and to pass a reasoned and speaking order on merits (of-course after providing due opportunity to the petitioner by following the principles of natural justice), within a period of eight weeks upon the receipt of copy of the Appeal Petition, dated 01.01.2011 submitted by the petitioner. 10. It is also open to the petitioner to submit a fresh copy of the Appeal, dated 01.01.2011 to the First Respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of copy of the Appeal Petition, dated 01.01.2011 submitted by the petitioner, the First Respondent is to pass the necessary orders on merits in accordance with law within the time adumbrated by this Court as referred to supra. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.