Judgment 1. Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the second respondent to provide backwages and arrears of salary with all monetary and service benefits in the post of Assistant Secretary 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Assistant Secretary in the second respondent Co-operative Bank and he was dismissed from service in pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. However, such order of dismissal was modified by the appellate authority as the one of reduction in rank by one stage. Accordingly, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Clerk. Challenging the said order of modified punishment, the petitioner approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.6298 of 2008. The said Writ Petition was finally disposed of on 10.09.2014 by setting aside the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner. It is also seen from the said order liberty was granted to the second respondent therein to appoint a fresh enquiry officer to hold an enquiry afresh into the charges and pass appropriate orders by following due process of law, if so advised. 4. It is now contended by the petitioner that even after the order dated 10.09.2014, the respondents have not initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and allowed the said order dated 10.09.2014 to become final and conclusive and the same has also not been challenged before the appellate court. Thus, he presented a representation dated 9.12.2014 seeking for disbursement of salary with backwages and other monetary and service benefits. As the said representation has not been considered, he filed the present Writ Petition before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).No.6298 of 2008, the second respondent therein has not appointed any fresh enquiry officer and no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner as on date. He further submitted that the time limit fixed by this Court in the said order, namely, three months for doing such exercise has also been expired. 6. He further submitted that the time limit fixed by this Court in the said order, namely, three months for doing such exercise has also been expired. 6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.02.2014 in the light of the orders passed by this Court on 10.09.2014 in W.P.(MD).No.6298 of 2008 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, if the said order dated 10.09.2014 passed by this Court has become final and no proceedings are initiated within the time stipulated therein. Such exercise shall be done by the second respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.