Authorities Must Decide the Petitioner’s Fresh Representation by a Reasoned Order Within One Month

The petitioner challenged her suspension dated 19 April 2023, the rejection of her representation dated 7 May 2025, and the change of her posting following revocation of suspension.

She also sought treatment of the suspension period as duty, payment of full salary with interest, and restoration of withheld increments.

At the hearing, her counsel sought permission to submit a fresh representation for consideration by the competent authority; the State did not oppose that request.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to submit a fresh representation concerning her service-related grievances for determination by the competent authority

Whether the competent authority should be directed to decide that representation within a specified period by a reasoned and speaking order

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court did not determine the merits of the petitioner’s challenges or rely on any specific statutory provision or precedent.

It directed the competent authority to consider the fresh representation “in accordance with law” and issue a reasoned and speaking order, expressly leaving the merits open.

The petitioner sought a fresh administrative determination, and the State raised no objection to that course.

The Court therefore disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to submit a representation with supporting documents and a copy of the order, rather than adjudicating the underlying service claims.

It made no finding on the legality of the suspension, posting change, or other requested relief.

The petitioner was directed to submit the fresh representation within 15 days of receiving the certified copy of the order; the competent authority must decide it within one month of submission, by a reasoned and speaking order, and communicate the outcome to the petitioner.