JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Government Advocate who appears for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, the learned counsel who appears for the respondent No. 6. 2. Considering the nature of the controversy involved, the writ petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the parties. 3. The petitioners before this Court are the Mizoram Sarva Shikha Abhiyan (SSA) Teachers Association comprising of about 1470 members. The Association is registered under the Mizoram Societies Registration Act, 2005 under Registration No. MSR 877 of 09.10.2017. The members of the petitioners Association were appointed/ engaged as teachers on a lump sum Contract basis and in a fixed remuneration under the SSA Mission as Lower Primary School as well as Upper Primary School teachers. Although their appointments have been made under the SSA Mission, the members of the petitioners Association have been posted in various Government Primary and Middle Schools as well as Deficit Schools. According to the petitioners, they have roughly rendered about 18 years of service in the aforesaid capacity. It is their apprehension that if their services are not absorbed by the respondents against the posts they are holding or by framing an appropriate scheme, they are bound to face grave hardship financially, once they attain the age of superannuation. Reliance has been placed by the petitioners to those Government Contract Primary School teachers who have since been regularized by the State Government. The petitioners contend that the Contract Primary School teachers were initially engaged under the Operation Blackboard (OBB), which is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme. Once the Scheme was discontinued, the services of those Primary School teachers were continued by engaging them under the SSA. Thereafter, they were absorbed as Government Contract Primary School teachers. On their absorption, they came to be governed by the Government of Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008. Thus, in accordance with the said Scheme, their services have been regularized. The petitioners contend that they are also similarly situated and therefore, they are entitled to be considered similarly by the State respondents. The petitioners also contend that a representation to this effect was submitted to the respondent No. 6 on 06.02.2018, wherein their grievances and their prayers were highlighted. The petitioners contend that they are also similarly situated and therefore, they are entitled to be considered similarly by the State respondents. The petitioners also contend that a representation to this effect was submitted to the respondent No. 6 on 06.02.2018, wherein their grievances and their prayers were highlighted. However, the said representation remains unconsidered and which has led them to approach this Court through the present writ petition. 4. Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, the learned counsel submits that since the representation of the petitioners are pending as on date, the limited prayers of the petitioners at this stage is only for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of their representation within a time frame. The said prayer is not opposed to by the learned Government Advocate, Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi. She, however, submits that the respondents should be given a reasonable time to consider and dispose of their representation. 5. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, the learned counsel who represents the respondent No. 6 submits that the respondent No. 6 never received a copy of the representation dated 06.02.2018 and therefore, the question of disposing the same does not arise. 6. By referring to the representation, he submits that there is no material to establish that the representation dated 06.02.2018 was indeed received by the respondent No. 6. He also submits that the representation submitted by the petitioners Association earlier on 02.05.2017 was disposed of on 06.09.2017 by informing the petitioners Association that their absorption cannot be taken up at that moment. The said communication dated 06.09.2017 is annexed at annexure 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 6. He also submits that the case of Kamrup District Siksha Sarathi (I) Association & Another Vs. State of Assam & Ors, reported in 2017 (5) GLT (FB) 188, relied upon by the petitioners in fact does not support their case inasmuch as the Full Bench of this Court only directed the respondent authorities to formulate the Scheme to grant the petitioners therein welfare facilities as was directed to be given in State of Assam Vs. Sri Upen Das, WA No. 45/2014, decided on 08.06.2017. 7. Sri Upen Das, WA No. 45/2014, decided on 08.06.2017. 7. Upon hearing the submissions of the rival parties and having due regard to the fact that the limited prayer of the petitioners is for consideration and disposal of their representation, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioners Association to submit a fresh representation to the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, School Education Department (respondent No. 2) through the State Project Director, SSA, Mizoram, Aizawl (respondent No. 6) within a period of 15 days from today. 8. The petitioners shall also submit a copy of the writ petition along with the said representation and also a certified copy of this order within a week and on receipt of a representation from the petitioners by the respondent No. 6, the respondent No. 6 shall forward the same to the respondent No. 2 alongwith a detailed write up as may be necessary and the respondent No. 2 on receipt of the representation of the petitioners shall consider and dispose of the same by way of a speaking order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the same. 9. A copy of the order to be passed shall be communicated to the petitioners Association. 10. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost.