Competent authority must decide pending representation through a reasoned, speaking order without adjudicating its merits.

The 57 applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking absorption as Parcel Porters on the basis of a verification report submitted by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 29 February 2000.

They also sought a direction to the respondents to decide their representation dated 24 September 2025.

The respondents contended that the claim for absorption, founded on the 2000 verification report, was barred by limitation.

The applicants, however, submitted that their representation dated 24 September 2025 remained pending and requested that the competent authority be directed to decide it by a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents stated that they had no objection to such a direction.

The Tribunal recorded that the representation had not been decided as of the date of the order.

1. Whether the applicants’ claim for absorption as Parcel Porters, based on the Assistant Labour Commissioner’s verification report dated 29 February 2000, was barred by limitation.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representation dated 24 September 2025 by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved person to seek adjudication of service-related grievances before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority must consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

Although limitation was raised by the respondents, the Tribunal did not adjudicate that issue or determine the applicants’ substantive entitlement to absorption.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ substantive absorption claim related to a verification report issued in 2000, giving rise to the respondents’ objection that the Original Application was delayed.

However, since the applicants confined their immediate request to consideration of their pending representation, and the respondents had no objection to such consideration, the Tribunal adopted a limited procedural course.

As the representation dated 24 September 2025 had remained undecided, the Tribunal directed the competent authority to examine it and issue a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The Tribunal expressly declined to examine the merits of the absorption claim.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to decide the applicants’ representation dated 24 September 2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, under intimation to the applicants, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of.