issued by respondent No.2-Director. If the petitioner is not under suspension and if he is not dismissed from service, respondent No.3 cannot squat over the representation submitted by the petitioner contrary to the directions issued by this Court and respondent No.2Director. Whether petitioner is entitled to seek arrears of salary has to be examined by respondent No.3 in accordance with law. The reluctance on the part of respondent No.3 in not deciding the representation prima facie gives an indication that with some oblique motive respondent No.3 does not wish to decide the representation. When representation is submitted pursuant to the directions issued by the Constitutional Court, the authorities are bound to consider the same in accordance with law. The authority, who is guilty of inaction, cannot be permitted to contest the writ petition when relief of mandamus is sought. When a helpless litigant approaches this Court alleging inaction on the part of the authorities in not deciding the representation in accordance with law, in such writ petitions, all that this
