Authorities must consider SRO 149 pay-scale claims by reasoned order, without prejudging entitlement.

The applicants, serving or retired Work Supervisors in the Public Works (R&B) Department, claimed entitlement under SRO 149 of 1973 to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5,000–8,000 rather than Rs. 4,000–6,000, with consequential benefits.

They relied on judgments concerning similarly situated employees, including a Division Bench judgment dated 8 May 2017, subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, and an order of the Tribunal dated 28 July 2026.

After submitting a representation on 10 March 2026, they sought its consideration.

During the hearing, they agreed that the Original Application could be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider their claim as a representation.

The Tribunal allowed their application to file jointly.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to treat the Original Application and supporting documents as a representation and decide the applicants’ claim for the higher pay scale and consequential benefits.

2. Whether the respondents must assess whether the applicants are similarly situated and covered by the cited judgments and orders, subject to applicable rules and eligibility.

The Tribunal did not determine any substantive entitlement under SRO 149 of 1973. It directed the respondents to consider the claim in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and law, and to assess whether the applicants were similarly situated and covered by the cited judicial decisions, subject to eligibility, entitlement and any legal impediment.

The Tribunal identified the Division Bench judgment in Provincial Power Employees Union & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors., SWP No. 809/2001, the Supreme Court’s decision in Civil Appeal No. 7992 of 2022, and its order in O.A. No. 795/2026 as materials the respondents must consider.

Given the applicants’ limited prayer at the hearing and the respondents’ acceptance of disposal by appropriate directions, the Tribunal concluded that keeping the matter pending would serve no useful purpose.

It therefore left the merits open and required the respondents to examine the applicants’ claim, including their asserted similarity to the employees covered by the cited decisions, under the applicable law.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation, consider the claim and supporting documents—including the cited judgments and orders—and issue a detailed, reasoned order within eight weeks of service of a certified copy, communicating the decision to the applicants.

No order as to costs was made.