Judgment 1. Mr.R.Anandha Raj, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the second respondent. By consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of suspension dated 28.08.2014 and the consequential notice dated 31.12.2014 extending the order of suspension. 4. The petitioner was working as a Sweeper in the second respondent Municipality and he was placed under suspension on 28.08.2014 based on the allegation that he participated in the strike conducted by the Workers' Union. It is seen that the petitioner has already challenged the order of suspension in W.P(MD)16611 of 2014 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.10.2014. 5. Further, the petitioner approached this Court and filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.19901 of 2014 and sought for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.10.204 and the said writ petition was also dismissed on 08.12.2014. 6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that another person by name, C.Dievayanai, who also participated in the strike, was allowed to join duty by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 14.01.2015 and therefore, the petitioner's case is also to be considered on par with that person. 7. It is seen that the petitioner has already made a representation seeking revocation of suspension dated 10.12.2014, however, the said request was rejected by the proceedings in the impugned dated 31.12.2014, and by extending the period of suspension by three months. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have permitted other person, namely, C.Dievayanai, the petitioner's case may also be considered to that effect. 8. If that is the case, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents seeking revocation of suspension and if the case of the petitioner is similar to the one of the other person, namely, C.Dievayanai, such representation shall be considered and decided by the respondents on merits and in accordance with law. 9. 8. If that is the case, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents seeking revocation of suspension and if the case of the petitioner is similar to the one of the other person, namely, C.Dievayanai, such representation shall be considered and decided by the respondents on merits and in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of, only with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.