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

The applicant, a Veterinary Officer/Veterinary Assistant Surgeon under the Government of NCT of Delhi, challenged the denial of financial upgradations under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme.

He sought recognition of his prior regular Group ‘A’ service from 2 May 1998 to 8 October 2008 in the Sashastra Seema Bal, rendered before technical resignation, and grant of the second, third and fourth DACP upgradations with consequential benefits.

The applicant had submitted several representations between 13 April 2022 and 11 September 2025, followed by reminders dated 13 May 2026 and 8 June 2026, relying, inter alia, on the Allahabad Bench decision in Dr. Luxmi Shankar Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 1066/2014.

During the hearing, the applicant restricted his request to a direction for consideration and disposal of those representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

1. Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representations concerning DACP financial upgradations, recognition of previous service and consequential benefits.

2. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicant’s substantive entitlement to the claimed DACP upgradations and other consequential reliefs at the admission stage.

The application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which enables an aggrieved government servant to seek adjudication of service-related grievances before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, requiring the competent authority to consider the applicant’s representations and issue a reasoned and speaking order rather than leave the grievance undecided.

It also directed consideration of the legal position stated by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Allahabad in Dr. Luxmi Shankar Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 1066/2014.

The Tribunal expressly preserved the respondents’ authority to decide the representations in accordance with law and did not determine the merits of the claimed DACP benefits.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s grievance regarding financial upgradations and counting of prior service had been raised through multiple representations and reminders, but the record before it did not warrant adjudication of the substantive entitlement at that stage.

Since the applicant agreed to pursue the immediate remedy of a decision on his pending representations, and the respondents accepted that they would consider them, the Tribunal treated a direction for administrative consideration as sufficient to satisfy natural justice.

Accordingly, without expressing any view on the merits of the DACP claim, it required the competent authority to examine the representations in light of the Allahabad Bench decision and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal left the respondents free to accept or reject the claims in accordance with law.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide all the specified representations and reminders, in light of Dr. Luxmi Shankar Tripathi, 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 M.A. for exemption was allowed and disposed of; there was no order as to costs.