Authority must determine applicability of judicial precedents to pay revision claims through reasoned speaking orders.

The sixty-six applicants filed an Original Application seeking to quash impugned rejection orders and requested a revision of their pay scales effective from 01.01.1996 (notionally) with actual arrears from 21.04.2004

This claim was based on a judgment dated 09.01.2024 passed by the CAT Hyderabad Bench in Cyril Joseph and others v. Union of India (OA No. 1089/2019), which was subsequently upheld by the Telangana High Court (09.08.2024) and the Supreme Court (28.02.2025)

During the hearing, the applicants' counsel limited the prayer to a request for permission to file a fresh representation before the competent authority for a time-bound decision in light of the aforementioned precedent

1. Whether the applicants should be permitted to file a fresh representation and whether the respondents are required to decide the same in a time-bound manner based on the legal principles established in the Cyril Joseph case.

The Tribunal applied the principle of administrative redressal and the requirement for "reasoned and speaking orders" in service matters

It relied on the judicial precedent of Cyril Joseph and others v. Union of India (OA No. 1089/2019, CAT Hyderabad Bench), which dealt with the revision of pay scales and was affirmed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court

The Tribunal adopted a procedural approach rather than adjudicating on the merits of the pay revision claim

It considered the applicants' request to submit a fresh representation as an "innocuous prayer" that would serve the ends of justice

While the respondents' counsel orally opposed the application, they requested a minimum of two months to decide on such representations if directed

The Tribunal noted that it was not delving into the merits of the case but was ensuring that the administrative authority evaluates the "applicability" of the Cyril Joseph precedent to the specific circumstances of these 66 applicants

It directed the applicants to file a fresh representation within two weeks

The respondents or the competent authority were ordered to consider and decide the representation in light of the judgment in Cyril Joseph and others v. Union of India within two months of receipt

The court specified that the decision must be a "reasoned and speaking order" and must determine whether the cited precedent is applicable to the current applicants

No order as to costs was made