admittedly disbursed to the petitioner. But the petitioner projected a further grievance that the said amount only constituted the 'basic salary' and no Dearness Allowance was disbursed, which made her to file Ext. P2 representation before the second respondent for appropriate reliefs. Since no action was forthcoming, the petitioner approached this Court by filing OP.No.16163 of 2002, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, whereby the above representation was ordered to be considered and disposed of, in accordance with law, within the time, as specified therein. In tune with the above direction, the matter was considered by the second respondent, who passed Ext.P4 order on 06.09.2002 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to have any Dearness Allowance, in view of the relevant rule position and the contents of G.O.(P)444/72/Fin dated 14.09.1972, a copy of which has been produced as Ext. P5. The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Exts. P4 and P5 in this original petition.