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

The applicant, a Clerk in the Engineering Department of the Chandigarh Administration, applied on 2 July 2025 for out-of-turn government accommodation on medical grounds, citing his father’s severe road accident and subsequent neurosurgeries.

His case remained undecided despite an unallotted medical-category vacancy in the House Allotment Committee (Lower) meeting dated 25 September 2025.

Through RTI applications, a first appeal, and CPGRAMS grievances, the applicant sought information regarding the vacancy and learned that no committee meetings had been held between 25 September 2025 and 31 March 2026.

He subsequently alleged that the vacancy had been allotted to another person without convening a committee meeting.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 11 July 2026 to the Secretary, House Allotment Committee, seeking reconsideration and examination of the allotment procedure, but the representation remained undecided.

He therefore filed the present OA seeking a direction for its disposal.

Whether the respondents could be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 11 July 2026 concerning his claim for out-of-turn government accommodation and the alleged allotment of the medical-category vacancy.

Whether the representation was required to be disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order within a prescribed time frame.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and fair administrative decision-making, under which a competent authority must consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also followed the settled procedural principle that, where the applicant seeks only consideration of a representation and the respondents have no objection, the matter may be disposed of by issuing a time-bound direction without adjudicating the underlying merits.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or relied upon in the order.

The applicant’s grievance before the Tribunal was confined to the respondents’ failure to decide his representation dated 11 July 2026, rather than a request for direct allotment of accommodation.

The respondents did not oppose a direction requiring consideration of the representation.

In order to meet the requirements of natural justice, the Tribunal directed Respondent No. 2, identified as the competent authority, to examine the representation and address the contentions raised therein by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from examining the legality or merits of the alleged allotment or the applicant’s entitlement to accommodation.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to decide the applicant’s representation dated 11 July 2026, including all contentions raised therein, by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

The applicant was directed to furnish a copy of the order along with the OA to the competent authority.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and made no order as to costs.