![Authorities must decide the applicants’ representation by a reasoned order, preferably within six weeks.. SACHIN vs UNION OF INDIA. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/authorities-must-decide-the-applicants-representation-by-a-reasoned-order-preferably-withi-223f5c18ab3e4460801d8e031c976489.webp)
Facts
The three applicants, civilian Switch Board Operators-II (CSBOs) at Army Hospital (Research & Referral), claimed that despite completing the requisite period of regular service, they had not received Time Bound Promotion or the corresponding financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme.
Source reference: p. 3They relied on decisions concerning similarly situated CSBOs, including *Madhu Sudan & Ors. v. Union of India*, O.A. No. 3204/2011, and *Surinder Pal v. Union of India*, O.A. No. 1095/2015.
Source reference: p. 3After arguing the matter, their counsel stated that the applicants would be satisfied with a direction to decide their pending representation dated 11 November 2025.
Source reference: p. 3The applicants had filed an application to pursue the O.A. jointly; the Tribunal allowed it.
Source reference: p. 2Issues
Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 11 November 2025 concerning their claimed promotion and MACP benefits.
Source reference: p. 3–4Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicants’ substantive entitlement to those benefits at the admission stage.
Source reference: p. 3–4Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle that a representation should be considered and decided by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order, consistently with natural justice.
Source reference: p. 4It did not apply or interpret any specific statute, scheme provision, or precedent on the applicants’ substantive entitlement. The decisions cited by the applicants were noted as the basis of their claim, but the Tribunal expressly left the merits open.
Source reference: p. 3–4Reasoning
The applicants narrowed their request to obtaining a decision on their pending representation. The Tribunal considered that directing the competent authority to address the representation in a reasoned and speaking order would meet the requirements of natural justice, without deciding whether the applicants were entitled to Time Bound Promotion or MACP benefits.
Source reference: p. 3–4It therefore left the respondents free to decide the representation in accordance with law and without being influenced by the Tribunal’s order.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Tribunal directed the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 11 November 2025 by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
It expressed no opinion on the merits and disposed of the O.A. at the admission stage, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 4The application for joint prosecution was allowed and disposed of.
Source reference: p. 2Original Court PDF
SACHINvsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
