Merits review required after rejected representation where prior writ direction did not finally decide claim for higher special allowances.

A prior writ direction requiring a representation did not finally dispose of the employee's claim for higher special allowances or bar further recourse after rejection of that representation. Because the High Court had not examined the grievance on merits, the dispute required substantive adjudication. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was required to consider the appellant's grievance for higher special allowances on merits, despite an earlier writ petition having resulted only in a direction to make a representation.

Analysis: The earlier direction to make a representation did not close the matter or bar the appellant from approaching the High Court again after the representation was rejected. Since the High Court had not examined the claim on merits, the matter required substantive adjudication.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for consideration on merits.

---