Competent authority must decide the pending representation by a reasoned order within four weeks.

The applicants, serving or retired Store Keepers, Senior Store Keepers, Head Store Keepers and Store Officers associated with the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, and the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, claimed that their cadre should be included, inducted or adjusted in the Technical Cadre under the reclassification provisions of the Technical Services Rules, 2013 (“TSR, 2013”), adopted by notification dated 1 March 2017. They also sought consequential time-bound promotions, revised pay scales, upgradation of pay and other service benefits, including benefits allegedly arising from a work-measurement decision with notional effect from 1 January 2006

The applicants’ representation was stated to be under consideration before the concerned Committee, as reflected in the respondents’ reply dated 2 July 2024

The Registry raised technical objections in the matter. In view of those objections, the applicants confined their request before the Tribunal to a direction for expeditious disposal of their pending representation

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to expedite consideration of the applicants’ pending representation concerning their induction or adjustment into the Technical Cadre and consequential service benefits?

2. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicants’ substantive claims for cadre reclassification, promotion, pay-scale upgradation and consequential benefits at this stage?

The Tribunal applied the principle that an administrative authority must consider and decide a pending representation in accordance with the applicable service rules, notifications and governmental instructions, and must communicate a reasoned and speaking order to the affected employees.

The claims were to be examined under the Technical Services Rules, 2013, the notification dated 1 March 2017 adopting those Rules, and other relevant rules and material governing cadre classification, promotion and pay benefits

The Tribunal further applied the procedural principle that, where the applicant confines the relief to consideration of a representation, the Tribunal may issue a time-bound direction without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying claim

No judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

Since the applicants limited their prayer to expeditious disposal of their representation, and the respondents acknowledged that the matter was already under consideration before the concerned Committee, the Tribunal declined to examine the merits of the applicants’ entitlement to Technical Cadre status, promotion or revised pay

It directed the concerned Committee to consider the representation along with the applicable rules, notifications and other relevant material. If a recommendation was necessary, it was to be prepared and placed before the competent authority, which was then required to independently pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order

It directed the respondents to expedite the existing process, required the concerned Committee to consider the representation and make any necessary recommendation, and directed the competent authority to pass and communicate a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of