Authorities must decide a pending representation through a reasoned order before adjudication on merits.

The applicant, a Nursing Orderly with the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation since 2011, suffered an accident in 2019 resulting in disability in both legs and was declared 100% disabled.

She stood at Serial No. 398 in the final seniority list and claimed to be within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Dresser.

The respondents, however, promoted another employee belonging to the Persons with Disabilities category who stood at Serial No. 630 and was allegedly junior to the applicant.

The promotion order was dated 17 April 2026, following which the applicant issued a legal notice/representation dated 28 April 2026.

As the respondents neither replied to the representation nor took a decision on it, the applicant filed the present Original Application.

The respondents contended that the OA was premature because six months had not elapsed from the date of the representation.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s legal notice/representation concerning her claim for promotion over the allegedly junior employee.

Whether the Original Application was premature for want of exhaustion of the statutory remedy or prior consideration by the respondents under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which embodies the requirement that an applicant ordinarily exhaust available departmental remedies before invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

In circumstances where a representation is pending and has not been considered, the Tribunal may grant the competent authority an opportunity to decide it in accordance with law before examining the substantive dispute.

The Tribunal also applied the administrative-law requirement that the competent authority pass a reasoned and speaking order on the employee’s claim.

No determination was made on the merits of the applicant’s seniority, disability-category entitlement, or promotion claim.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned promotion order was issued on 17 April 2026 and that the applicant submitted her legal notice shortly thereafter, on 28 April 2026.

Nearly five months had passed without any response or decision from the respondents.

Although the respondents argued that the OA was premature because six months had not elapsed, the Tribunal considered it appropriate, in light of Section 20 and the prolonged inaction, to provide the respondents one opportunity to examine the applicant’s claim administratively.

Rather than deciding whether the applicant was entitled to promotion over the junior employee, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to consider the existing legal notice as well as the OA itself as a representation and to issue a reasoned decision.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider the legal notice dated 28 April 2026, with the OA also being treated as a representation/legal notice, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The OA was disposed of accordingly, and the pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.