Authority directed to decide representation on pay, pension, and recovery by a reasoned order.

The applicant, a retired Sub-Inspector of the Delhi Police, joined service as a Constable on 2 May 1986 and superannuated on 30 April 2026.

He alleged that his pay was reduced and re-fixed from ₹42,300 to ₹41,100 with effect from 1 January 2017 without notice or an opportunity of hearing.

He further contended that his last pay for pensionary and retirement benefits was treated as ₹53,600 instead of ₹55,200, and that ₹2,50,564 was recovered from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity without prior notice or an opportunity to represent.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 21 August 2026 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police seeking redressal of these grievances.

As the representation had not been decided, he approached the Tribunal and agreed to disposal of the Original Application with a direction for its consideration by the competent authority.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation concerning the reduction and re-fixation of his pay, fixation of his last pay for pensionary benefits, and recovery from his DCRG.

Whether, while deciding the representation, the competent authority was required to examine the applicant’s contention that the reduction in pay and recovery were effected without issuance of a show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative fairness and natural justice, particularly the requirement that a person affected by adverse administrative action should ordinarily be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to make a representation.

It further applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a representation in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order.

The Tribunal confined itself to issuing a procedural direction and did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the applicant’s claims.

Since the applicant’s representation raised specific grievances regarding pay reduction, pensionary pay fixation, and recovery from DCRG, and since the respondents had not yet decided it, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require a formal decision by the competent authority.

Without expressing any opinion on whether the reduction or recovery was legally valid, the Tribunal directed Respondent No. 2 to examine each grievance, including the alleged denial of notice and hearing, in accordance with law, applicable rules, and instructions.

The direction preserved the respondents’ authority to decide the merits independently while ensuring that the applicant’s objections were duly considered and addressed by a reasoned order.

The exercise was to be completed within 45 days from receipt of the Tribunal’s order, and the decision was to be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the claims.

No order as to costs was made.