Competent authorities must decide fresh representations by reasoned orders without prejudging entitlement.

The eight applicants were retired officers of the Central Excise/CGST department, including Inspectors, Superintendents and Assistant Commissioners serving under the Lucknow Zone.

They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking extension of the revised pay scales of ₹6,500–10,500 and ₹7,500–12,000 for Inspectors and Superintendents respectively, with effect from 1 January 1996, together with consequential benefits and arrears up to 21 April 2004.

The applicants relied upon decisions including the Hyderabad Bench’s judgment dated 9 January 2024 in Cyril Joseph & Ors. v. Union of India, the Lucknow Bench’s order dated 5 February 2026 in Vikas Kapoor & Ors. v. Union of India, and the subsequent decisions of the Telangana High Court and the Supreme Court referred to in the application.

During the hearing, the applicants confined their immediate request to permission to submit fresh representations and a direction to the competent authority to decide them by a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents opposed the request orally but agreed that, if such a direction were issued, two months should be allowed for deciding the representations.

Whether the applicants should be permitted to submit fresh representations seeking the benefit of the decisions in Vikas Kapoor and Cyril Joseph?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to determine the applicability of those decisions to the applicants and decide their representations by a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed period?

Whether the Tribunal should directly grant the claimed revised pay scales and consequential arrears at this stage?

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that an administrative authority must consider a representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

It relied upon the directions and legal principles contained in the Lucknow Bench’s order dated 5 February 2026 in Vikas Kapoor & Ors. v. Union of India and the Hyderabad Bench’s judgment dated 9 January 2024 in Cyril Joseph & Ors. v. Union of India as the decisions against which the applicants’ claims were to be examined.

The Tribunal did not itself determine the applicants’ entitlement to the revised pay scales; instead, it directed the competent authority to determine the applicability of those precedents to the present case.

The Tribunal treated the applicants’ modified prayer as an innocuous request for consideration of their claim rather than as a prayer requiring immediate adjudication on entitlement to revised pay scales.

Since the applicants had relied upon judicial decisions allegedly extending similar benefits, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to provide an opportunity for fresh representations and to require the competent authority to examine the precedential applicability of Vikas Kapoor and Cyril Joseph.

The Tribunal therefore avoided deciding the substantive pay-fixation claim itself and preserved the respondents’ authority to assess whether the cited decisions applied to these applicants.

In accordance with the respondents’ submission, it allowed two months from receipt of the representations for their disposal.

The applicants were directed to submit fresh representations within two weeks from 9 September 2026.

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide those representations within two months of receipt, in light of the orders in Vikas Kapoor and Cyril Joseph, by passing a reasoned and speaking order and communicating it to the applicants.

The respondents were specifically directed to determine the applicability of those decisions to the present case.

There was no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.