Competent authorities must decide pending MACP arrears claims through reasoned and speaking orders.

The applicant, Sunil Joshi, a Deputy Director General on deputation to the Competition Commission of India and substantively an Assistant Commissioner in the Central GST Department, challenged the non-release of arrears arising from the grant of the 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefit with effect from 1 February 2019.

The respondents had sanctioned the 3rd MACP benefit, carried out consequential pay fixation, quantified arrears at ₹2,95,970, and prepared the payment bill.

However, the Pay and Accounts Office returned the bill on the ground that certain documents—including the CAT order, CBIC order, and order granting Non-Functional Grade—were not available in the applicant’s Service Book.

The applicant submitted representations dated 23 March 2023, 11 October 2023, and 16 April 2024 seeking release of the arrears, but no reasoned or speaking order was passed on them.

He therefore approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicant was entitled to immediate release of the quantified arrears of ₹2,95,970 arising from the grant of the 3rd MACP benefit.

Whether the competent authority was required to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the absence of certain documents in the Service Book justified withholding payment of the arrears after the MACP benefit and consequential pay fixation had been sanctioned.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the administrative-law principle that an authority must consider pending representations and claims in accordance with the applicable rules and departmental instructions and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal further proceeded on the principle that entitlement to consequential monetary benefits must be determined by the competent authority under the governing service rules and departmental instructions; however, it did not finally adjudicate the applicant’s substantive entitlement to the arrears.

The Tribunal found it undisputed that the applicant had already been granted the 3rd MACP benefit and that consequential pay fixation had been completed.

Although the arrears had reportedly been quantified and the bill prepared, the payment was withheld because of objections concerning the Service Book.

Since the applicant’s representations remained undecided and the record contained no speaking order addressing either the objections or his claim, the Tribunal held that procedural fairness required the competent authority to examine the claim under the relevant rules, instructions, and available documents.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits of entitlement or on the validity of the Pay and Accounts Office’s objections, the Tribunal considered a time-bound decision to be the appropriate relief.

If the applicant was found entitled to the 3rd MACP arrears, the admissible amount was directed to be released expeditiously in accordance with law.

The Tribunal did not itself direct immediate payment of ₹2,95,970 or award interest, and made no order as to costs.