JUDGMENT : [WP (C) Nos. 7929/2017, 4968/2018, 5068/2018] 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are stated to be ex-servicemen presently working as “Armed Guard-cum-Watchman” with the respondent Bank, seeking to challenge the unilateral decision taken by the Bank to reduce the salary payable to the respective writ petitioners. 2. Heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Shashank Devan, representing Sri. K.M. Anish, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank. 3. This Court notices that the petitioners in these writ petitions have filed detailed representations at Ext.P8 in W.P. (C) No.7929 of 2017, Ext.P11 (lawyer notice) in W.P. (C) No.4968 of 2018, and Ext.P12 (lawyer notice) in W.P. (C) No.5068 of 2018, with the respondent Bank pointing out their entitlement for getting salary without reduction, as noticed above. 4. This Court notices, with reference to the submissions made by Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, that since the petitioners are to retire in the near future, it is advisable to have a quietus to the issue. 5. Resultantly, these writ petitions would stand disposed of, directing the respondent Bank to consider and pass orders on the respective representations or with reference to the fresh representations to be filed by the petitioners, if so advised, within a period of 10 days from today, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks thereafter. 6. Needless to say, the respondent Bank would consider the contentions raised by the respective petitioners in its true spirit and sympathetically.