Competent authority must reconsider the employee’s increment claim and pass a speaking order within six weeks.

The applicant, a Sg. Constable in the J&K Police, was placed under suspension by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Anantnag, on 7 October 2013 in connection with departmental proceedings and criminal cases registered under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act.

A departmental charge-sheet was issued, and the applicant was subsequently reinstated on 20 May 2014 after approximately seven months of suspension; however, the period of suspension was not regularised.

He sought release of his annual increments from May 2014 onwards, payment of gross pay inclusive of those increments, and consequential arrears.

The respondents stated that criminal proceedings were pending and that the applicant’s claim would be considered after their conclusion.

During the proceedings, the applicant produced orders showing his acquittal in FIR No. 60/2013 on 9 December 2019 and in FIR No. 83/2013 on 12 June 2025.

1. Whether the respondents were required to consider the applicant’s claim for release of increments, revision of gross pay, and payment of arrears after the criminal proceedings against him had concluded in acquittal.

2. Whether the Tribunal should itself grant the monetary relief sought or direct the competent authority to determine the claim by a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law principle that a public authority must consider an employee’s service and monetary claim in accordance with the applicable service rules and pass a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the authority had earlier deferred decision pending criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the principle that, after the criminal cases relied upon by the respondents had ended in acquittal, the applicant’s claim required fresh consideration by the competent authority.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited or applied in the order.

The respondents had justified non-determination of the applicant’s claim on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending.

Since the applicant produced acquittal orders in both criminal cases, the factual basis for keeping his claim undecided had materially changed.

However, the Tribunal did not itself determine whether the increments, pay fixation, or arrears were legally payable, nor did it adjudicate the effect of the suspension period.

Considering that the matter had remained pending for more than seven years, it directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s case in light of the earlier stand taken in the respondents’ reply and to issue a detailed, speaking order within six weeks.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s claim in light of the acquittals and the stand recorded in paragraph 4 of the SSP’s reply, and to pass a detailed and speaking order within six weeks from 18 September 2026.

The competent authority was also permitted, if considered appropriate, to provide the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

The connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.