JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is before this Court assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.207615/2015 dated 06.01.2016. 2. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would indicate that on a detail reference to the provisions contained in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the learned Single Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant is required to approach the appropriate forum under that Act and has therefore declined to consider the case as put forth by the petitioner therein. 3. Learned Addl. Advocate General would seek to sustain the said order and would contend that the learned Single Judge was justified in that regard and if at all the appellant has any grievance, he is required to approach the KAT and the grievance of the appellant would not arise for consideration herein. 4. In that regard, having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we find that though the legal position regarding the forum is true, however that aspect of the matter is premature at this point in time. We are of the said opinion for the reason that the appellant was before this Court in an earlier petition in W.P.No.100101/2013 making out a grievance that the representation submitted by him has not been considered. Learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the writ petition through the order dated 28.03.2013 had directed consideration of the representation. Pursuant to the same, the respondents have issued the endorsement dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure-D) to the petitioner. Claiming to be aggrieved by the same, the writ petition in W.P.No.207615/2015 is filed. 5. Though several contentions have been urged in the writ petition assailing the endorsement, what is necessary to be taken note at this juncture is that the endorsement is not in the nature of consideration of the representation and determination of the right as claimed by the appellant. Though the endorsement refers to the enclosures therein and states that it is self explanatory, the respondents were required to apply their mind to the representation submitted by the appellant and a decision was to be taken and be conveyed to the appellant. Though the endorsement refers to the enclosures therein and states that it is self explanatory, the respondents were required to apply their mind to the representation submitted by the appellant and a decision was to be taken and be conveyed to the appellant. In such reply, if the relief as claimed by the appellant in the representation was denied to the appellant, it is at that stage the appellant was required to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any, as in such proceedings the adjudication of the rival contentions is to be made. That stage has not yet arisen herein. 6. Therefore without expressing any opinion with regard to the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned relating to the jurisdiction, we limit the consideration in this appeal only to direct the respondents to consider the representation keeping in view the direction which had been issued by this Court earlier in W.P.No.100101/2013 dated 28.03.2013 and inform the appellant about his right as claimed in the representation one way or the other without reference to the endorsement which does not satisfy the requirement. Such consideration shall be made and the reply be issued to the appellant as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which a copy of this judgment is furnished to the respondents. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.