Competent Authority Must Decide Pending Representation on Higher Grade Pay Claims via Reasoned and Speaking Order

The applicant, an Income Tax Officer (Group-B), approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to grant her a Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- in Pay Level 9 (pre-revised scale of Rs. 9,300–34,800) along with 12% interest on arrears.

The applicant claimed that similarly placed employees had already been granted this relief.

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel limited the prayer to a request for a time-bound disposal of her pending representation dated 20.11.2024.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide upon the applicant's pending representation regarding the grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- in light of existing judicial precedents.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate disputes regarding recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.

The principle of parity and judicial consistency, referencing the precedent set by the Ernakulam Bench of the CAT in Prince Raj K. vs. Union of India Ors. (O.A./233/2013).

The general administrative law principle that representations by employees must be decided via reasoned and speaking orders.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the case on merits but focused on the procedural fairness of administrative inaction.

Given the applicant's willingness to forgo a full hearing in exchange for a directed consideration of her representation, and the respondents' lack of objection to deciding the matter if not already settled, the Tribunal found it "just and proper" to invoke the principles of natural justice.

The court noted the applicant's reliance on Prince Raj K. and the claim of parity with other employees, and concluded that the competent authority must evaluate these factors to determine if the applicant is legally entitled to the revised Grade Pay.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 20.11.2024 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the receipt of the certified order.

No order was made as to costs.