Facts
The applicant, a Lecturer (Selection Grade) aged 53, approached the Tribunal seeking the grant of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of ₹10,000/- in Pay Band-4
Source reference: p. 2This claim was based on AICTE Regulations of 2012 and 2016, which the respondents adopted via an office order dated July 29, 2016
Source reference: p. 2-3While an initial Screening Committee in October 2018 found the applicant eligible, a second committee constituted two months later deemed him ineligible, leaving the matter unresolved
Source reference: p. 3The applicant submitted a representation on January 15, 2026, and a reminder on February 25, 2026, neither of which received a response from the respondents
Source reference: p. 3Consequently, the applicant filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the respondents are obligated to decide upon the applicant’s pending representation regarding the grant of AGP of ₹10,000/- in a time-bound manner
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Law Applied
The Tribunal's jurisdiction was invoked under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Source reference: p. 2The substantive claim for AGP was governed by the AICTE Regulations of 2012 and 2016
Source reference: p. 2-3The applicant relied on the precedent of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 11725/2025, decided on August 11, 2026, asserting the case was squarely covered by said judgment
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s eligibility for the revised AGP or the validity of the conflicting Screening Committee reports
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Instead, the analysis centered on the procedural necessity of the respondents addressing the applicant’s administrative grievances
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7Given that the applicant's counsel requested a limited direction for the disposal of the pending representation, and the respondents’ counsel expressed no objection to this course of action, the Tribunal determined that a directive for a "reasoned and speaking order" would suffice to resolve the present application at the admission stage
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5, 6 & 7Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case
It directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s pending representation dated January 15, 2026, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of, and no costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8Original Court PDF
Dr GhanshyamvsGNCTD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in