Competent authority must decide pending representations by reasoned order after considering applicable precedents.

The 117 applicants, serving or retired employees of the Intelligence Bureau, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking grant of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) in the Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after completion of four years’ service in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800, including financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP schemes, with consequential arrears and revision of retirement benefits.

The applicants relied on the CAT’s decision in N.K. Batra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 661/2020, dated 31 July 2023, its alleged affirmation by the Delhi High Court dated 4 March 2024, and the CAT’s decision in Surendra Pal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 662/2020, dated 7 April 2025.

Since the applicants sought common relief, they filed M.A. No. 4000/2026 for permission to join together, which was allowed.

During hearing, the applicants limited their prayer to a direction requiring the competent authority to decide their pending representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents agreed to consider the representations in accordance with law, if they had not already been decided.

Whether the 117 applicants could be permitted to join together in a single Original Application for seeking common relief concerning pay fixation and NFU benefits?

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations regarding NFU in the ₹5,400 Grade Pay by taking into account the decisions in N.K. Batra and Surendra Pal Singh?

Whether the Tribunal should itself grant the claimed NFU and consequential monetary benefits at the admission stage?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government employee to approach the Tribunal for adjudication of service matters.

It applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a pending representation affecting service and pensionary rights be considered by the competent authority and decided through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal directed consideration of the representations in light of the principles laid down in N.K. Batra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 661/2020, dated 31 July 2023, and Surendra Pal Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 662/2020, dated 7 April 2025.

However, the Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding the substantive entitlement to NFU, leaving the respondents free to determine the representations in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ original claim involved a common question concerning grant of NFU and pay fixation, and therefore permitted them to prosecute the matter jointly in one O.A.

Since the applicants agreed to restrict their immediate relief to consideration of their pending representations, and the respondents fairly undertook to examine them, the Tribunal considered that the requirements of natural justice would be satisfied by directing a formal administrative decision rather than adjudicating the entitlement itself.

The competent authority was required to consider the cited CAT decisions, pass a reasoned and speaking order, and communicate it to each applicant.

The Tribunal deliberately did not express any view on the merits of the NFU claim.

O.A. No. 3130/2026 was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations, taking into account N.K. Batra and Surendra Pal Singh, by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order, and to communicate the decision to the applicants.

The Tribunal did not itself grant NFU, arrears, revised retirement benefits, or interest, and expressly left all merits open.

There was no order as to costs.