Central Administrative Tribunal
Administrative and Public LawEmployment and Labour Law

Competent Authority Directed to Decide Pending Representation for Financial Upgradation via Reasoned and Speaking Order

Ram Lal vs DEFENCE

Central Administrative TribunalJUDGMENT: May 04, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Competent Authority Directed to Decide Pending Representation for Financial Upgradation via Reasoned and Speaking Order. Ram Lal vs DEFENCE. Central Administrative Tribunal. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Two applicants, Sh. Ram Lal (Ex-Mali) and Sh. Bhoja Ram (Ex-Chowkidar), both retired senior citizens, filed an Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Source reference: p. 1-2

They sought the quashing of orders dated April 3, 2025, and a direction for the grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- (Pay Band-1) effective from January 1, 2006, along with 7th CPC financial upgradations and pension arrears with interest @ 9% p.a.

Source reference: p. 2-3

While their representations dated March 7, 2025, had been forwarded to the Directorate General of Medical Services (DGMS)-3B (the cadre controlling authority) via a communication dated April 3, 2025, no final decision had been communicated to them

Source reference: p. 3-4
02

Issues

1. Whether the applicants may be permitted to join together in a single O.A. under a common cause of action

Source reference: p. 2, para 1

2. Whether the respondants should be directed to decide the pending representations regarding pay scale fitment and financial upgradation within a specified timeline

Source reference: p. 3-4, para 4
03

Law Applied

The Tribunal applied the procedural provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, specifically Section 19 regarding the jurisdiction to entertain grievances of government servants

Source reference: p. 2

It also adhered to the Principles of Natural Justice, which necessitate that administrative representations related to service benefits be decided through reasoned and speaking orders within a reasonable timeframe

Source reference: p. 3-4, para 4
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal first addressed the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) for joining together, finding that since both applicants sought common relief against a common cause of action, the joinder was permissible

Source reference: p. 2, para 2

Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the applicants' counsel limited the prayer to a request for a timely disposal of their pending representations

Source reference: p. 3, para 2

The Bench observed that while the 187 Military Hospital had forwarded the representations to the DGMS-3B on April 3, 2025, the matter remained stagnant

Source reference: p. 3-4, para 4

Applying the principles of natural justice and administrative efficiency, the Tribunal determined that the competent authority is duty-bound to pass a "reasoned and speaking order" to resolve the grievances of the retired employees without the court unnecessarily delving into the merits of the pay-scale claims at this premature stage

Source reference: p. 4, para 5
05

Holding

The Tribunal allowed M.A. No. 2233/2026 for joining together

On the main O.A., the Tribunal directed the competent authority (respondents) to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations dated March 7, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order

Source reference: p. 4, para 4

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage without any order as to costs, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pay-scale claim

Source reference: p. 4, para 7-9
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 19851

Central Administrative Tribunal

Original Court PDF

Ram LalvsDEFENCE

Central Administrative Tribunal · May 04, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment