Facts
The twenty-two applicants were appointed as part-time Urdu teachers by the Urdu Academy (Respondent No. 3) between 1986 and 1995
Source reference: p. 5Pursuant to Cabinet Decision No. 1394 dated 17.04.2008, their positions were upgraded to full-time with increased remuneration
Source reference: p. 5Following the Delhi High Court’s directions in Durraj Fatima Naqvi & Ors. v. GNCTD, the applicants received 50% salary plus House Rent Allowance (HRA) and Transport Allowance (TA) until 31.03.2013
Source reference: p. 5From 01.04.2013, the respondents discontinued HRA and TA, paying only basic pay and Dearness Allowance (DA)
Source reference: p. 5The applicants sought parity with the judgment in Avtar Singh v. Punjabi Academy (15.07.2025), wherein the Delhi High Court directed that similarly placed teachers be granted 50% salary of regular teachers plus admissible benefits
Source reference: p. 5The applicants filed a representation dated 11.08.2025, which remained pending at the time of this application
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and decide upon the applicants' pending representation regarding the restoration of HRA, TA, and other benefits in light of judicial precedents
Source reference: p. 5-62. Whether a direction should be issued to the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated timeframe
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
The Court primarily applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a reasoned administrative decision
Source reference: p. 6It further relied upon the legal principles established in Avtar Singh v. Punjabi Academy (2025), which mandated the payment of 50% salary and admissible benefits to teachers of language academies under the GNCTD to ensure parity with regular teachers
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the applicants were not seeking an immediate adjudication on the merits of their claim but rather a procedural direction for the respondents to dispose of their pending representation dated 11.08.2025
Source reference: p. 5-6Counsel for the respondents conceded that the representation could be considered in accordance with the law
Source reference: p. 6The Tribunal reasoned that the principles of natural justice would be satisfied if the competent authority examined the applicants' grievances in the specific context of the Avtar Singh judgment
Source reference: p. 6The Court clarified that while the respondents must consider the representation, they are permitted to address the issue of limitation without being prejudiced by this order
Source reference: p. 6By directing a "reasoned and speaking order," the Tribunal ensured administrative accountability without pre-judging the underlying merits of the pay dispute
Source reference: p. 6Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. and the associated M.A. at the admission stage without expressing an opinion on the merits
It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicants' representation dated 11.08.2025 in light of the Avtar Singh judgment
Source reference: p. 6The respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order and communicate the decision to the applicants immediately thereafter
Source reference: p. 6No order as to costs was made
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
Irfan AlivsDepartment of Education
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in