Competent Authority Directed to Pass Reasoned Order on Pending Representations for Retiral Benefits and Increments

The applicant, Smt. Guddi Rani, was appointed as a temporary Postal Assistant on January 7, 1997, and was later promoted to the LSG cadre on February 18, 2019.

She became eligible for the 1st MACP on January 6, 2007, and the 2nd MACP on January 6, 2017.

Despite submitting several representations (the latest dated April 23, 2024) regarding the grant of an annual increment due from July 2001 and subsequent pay/pension revision, the respondents failed to finalize her claims.

Even after her superannuation on September 30, 2025, and inter-departmental communications acknowledging the grievance, the benefits remained unpaid.

Consequently, she filed this Original Application (OA) seeking directions for the grant of increments and terminal benefits with interest.

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to consider and decide upon the applicant's long-pending representations regarding annual increments and consequential retiral benefits.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate grievances related to recruitment and conditions of service of public servants.

Principles of Natural Justice, which necessitate that a competent authority must dispose of a citizen's representation through a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable timeframe, especially regarding earned service benefits.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents had been "sitting tight over the matter since 2007" despite internal communications from the SSPOs, Delhi North Division, acknowledging the applicant's claims for pay fixation and non-payment of benefits.

The court noted that the applicant had already retired from service and her grievances regarding increments due since 2001 remained unaddressed.

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the increment claim itself, the Tribunal focused on the procedural lapse of the respondents in failing to act on representations (Annexure A-10 to A-12).

It determined that the ends of justice would be met by directing a time-bound administrative review to ensure the applicant's statutory rights are evaluated.

The court held that if the decision is favorable, the claims must be disbursed in accordance with the law; if unfavorable, the applicant retains the liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

No order as to costs was made.