Competent authority directed to decide pending representation by a reasoned order within six weeks, without ruling on merits.

The seven applicants were retired Group ‘A’ Principals serving under the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. They had been granted Pay Band-3 with Grade Pay of ₹7,600 and claimed entitlement to Pay Band-4 with Grade Pay of ₹8,700 under the third financial upgradation of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, asserting that similarly situated juniors had received such benefit.

The applicants had submitted a common representation dated 30 October 2025 seeking redressal of their claim, which remained pending. They filed the present Original Application seeking appropriate directions.

By MA No. 3513/2026, they sought permission to pursue the matter jointly; the Tribunal allowed the application because they had a common relief, common cause of action, and common intention.

During hearing, the applicants agreed to be satisfied with a direction for consideration and disposal of their representation, and the respondents agreed to consider it in accordance with law.

Whether the applicants’ pending representation dated 30 October 2025 seeking Grade Pay of ₹8,700 in Pay Band-4 under the third financial upgradation of the MACP Scheme should be considered and decided by the competent authority.

Whether the Tribunal should determine the applicants’ substantive entitlement to the claimed Grade Pay at the admission stage.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, requiring the competent authority to consider a pending service representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Where the parties consent to disposal through consideration of a pending representation, the Tribunal may issue a limited mandamus directing the competent authority to decide the representation in accordance with law within a stipulated period, without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants asserted parity with allegedly similarly situated juniors who had been granted Grade Pay of ₹8,700 under the third MACP financial upgradation, and that their representation raising this claim had not yet been decided.

Since the applicants expressly accepted consideration of the representation as the relief and the respondents undertook to examine it in accordance with law, the Tribunal found that the requirements of natural justice would be satisfied by directing a reasoned determination.

It deliberately refrained from deciding whether the applicants were substantively entitled to the claimed Grade Pay, leaving that question to the competent authority.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, it directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 30 October 2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within six weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The respondents were left free to decide the claim in accordance with law.

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage, pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.