Authority directed to decide pending representations by a reasoned, speaking order within 30 days.

The applicants, three Deputy General Managers serving in establishments associated with the Ordnance Factory/India Optel system, alleged that administrative delay and the clubbing of vacancies covering more than three years had adversely affected their promotional prospects.

They sought notional treatment as Assistant Works Managers in 2013 and Works Managers in 2017, without financial benefits, and consideration for promotion to the post of Joint General Manager/JAG from 1 January 2026 or 1 January 2027.

They apprehended retirement in 2027 without consideration for such promotion, despite having rendered more than thirty-eight years of service.

The applicants stated that their representations dated 18 May 2026, 21 May 2026 and 2 June 2026 were pending before the respondents.

With the consent of the parties, the Tribunal took up the Original Application for disposal at the admission stage.

Whether the pending representations submitted by the applicants concerning their notional past promotions and consideration for promotion to the post of Joint General Manager/JAG were required to be examined and decided by the competent respondent authority.

Whether the Tribunal should directly grant or adjudicate the applicants’ substantive claims for notional promotion and future promotion in the present proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a pending representation in accordance with law and dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the matter was disposed of at the admission stage with the parties’ consent, and without adjudicating the merits of the applicants’ promotional claims, no specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The Tribunal noted the applicants’ grievance regarding alleged administrative delay, clubbing of vacancies and consequent stagnation in promotion.

However, as the applicants’ representations were pending consideration, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the Cadre Controlling Authority to examine those representations rather than directly decide the claims for notional promotion or promotion to Joint General Manager/JAG.

The direction was expressly issued without expressing any opinion on the merits, thereby leaving all substantive questions open for determination by respondent No. 1 in accordance with law.

The Tribunal did not grant the requested notional promotions or direct promotion to Joint General Manager/JAG.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.