Competent authority must decide pending representations by a reasoned, speaking order within six weeks.

The applicant, Veena Singh, a retired Deputy Nursing Superintendent from Lok Nayak Hospital, challenged the non-disposal of her representations dated 20.05.2026 and 20.09.2019, along with reminders dated 21.10.2025 and 30.09.2025.

During the hearing, the respondents objected that the Lieutenant Governor had been improperly impleaded, resulting in misjoinder of parties.

The applicant acknowledged that Respondent No. 1 had been impleaded due to a typographical and inadvertent error and sought permission to delete that respondent, which the Tribunal allowed at the Bar.

The applicant thereafter limited her prayer to a direction requiring the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether Respondent No. 1, Government of NCT of Delhi through the Lieutenant Governor, was wrongly impleaded and ought to be deleted from the proceedings on account of misjoinder of parties.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representations and reminders by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that an administrative authority consider a pending representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

It also applied the procedural principle permitting correction of an inadvertent misjoinder or erroneous impleadment by deleting the improperly joined party.

Since the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s underlying claim, no specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon or interpreted; the direction was issued without prejudice to the parties’ substantive rights.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents’ objection that Respondent No. 1 had been wrongly arrayed and permitted its deletion, thereby curing the alleged misjoinder.

As both parties agreed that the pending representations would be considered in accordance with law, the Tribunal treated disposal through a reasoned and speaking order as sufficient to meet the requirements of natural justice.

Without expressing any view on the merits, it directed the competent authority among the remaining respondents to consider the representations dated 20.05.2026 and 20.09.2019 and the reminders dated 21.10.2025 and 30.09.2025, and to communicate its decision to the applicant.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representations and reminders by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order, and to communicate the decision to the applicant at the earliest.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim, disposed of the Original Application at the admission stage, and made no order as to costs.