Competent authority directed to decide the applicant’s representation through a reasoned, speaking order within four weeks.

The applicant, Sh. Anil Kumar, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking payment of emoluments equivalent to those paid to regularly working Food Hygiene Beldars, along with arrears and interest.

He relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 4 December 2019 in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 12059/2018, which, according to him, granted identical relief to similarly situated employees.

He further stated that the High Court judgment had attained finality after dismissal of the respondents’ Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court on 25 March 2025.

The applicant had submitted a representation dated 5 June 2026 to the respondents seeking identical relief, but it remained undecided.

The respondents’ counsel accepted notice and received a copy of the paper book during the hearing.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 5 June 2026 seeking parity in emoluments, arrears, and interest, by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the Tribunal should directly grant the monetary reliefs claimed by the applicant on the basis of the High Court judgment dated 4 December 2019 and the subsequent Supreme Court orders.

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

It applied the procedural principle that a competent administrative authority must consider a pending representation and dispose of it by a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the representation raises a claim based on judicial precedents and alleged parity with similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal also took note of the applicant’s reliance on the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and the stated dismissal of the respondents’ SLPs by the Supreme Court, but did not adjudicate the applicant’s substantive entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The Tribunal did not examine the merits of the applicant’s claim for equal emoluments, arrears, or interest.

Since the applicant had already submitted a representation dated 5 June 2026 and the respondents had not disposed of it, the appropriate immediate relief was to require the competent authority to consider the representation.

The Tribunal therefore preserved the respondents’ obligation to examine the applicant’s reliance on the High Court judgment and related Supreme Court orders, while directing that the decision be made through a reasoned and speaking order.

This course was adopted with the consent of counsel and expressly without entering into the merits of the claim.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 5 June 2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

No order as to costs was made.