JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outsets ubmits that identically situated person namely Mr. Vinod Kumar Chobisa, has been accorded notional benefits from 28th January, 2008, whereas the petitioners, have been declined the same treatment and thus, the action of the State - respondents is discriminatory and in violation to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel further submits that for the present, the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation within a time frame in the backdrop of order dated 7th May, 2013, wherein benefits on notional basis have been accorded to Mr. Vinod Kumar Chobisa. 3. In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents within two weeks hereinafter. 4. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, however, in no case later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. 5. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ petition stands disposed of. 6. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioners grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.