Departmental representations must be exhausted as a mandatory pre-condition before invoking Tribunal jurisdiction under Section 20.

The applicant, Maheshwar Singh, joined the BSF as a Constable in 1990 and was inducted into the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on deputation in 2010

While on deputation, he was promoted to Head Constable in the BSF on 20.12.2012 and was subsequently permanently absorbed into the NIA as a Head Constable on 13.10.2014

The applicant seeks to have his past service in the BSF (from 2012 to 2014) in an analogous post counted for promotion eligibility to the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector and Sub-Inspector in the NIA

Despite submitting a representation to the respondents on 11.09.2023, no decision was communicated, leading to the filing of the present Original Application (OA)

1. Whether the Registry's objection regarding the delay in filing the OA should be sustained given the nature of the claim

2. Whether the remedy of filing a representation is efficacious and imposes a counter-obligation on the authority to decide the matter before an applicant approaches the Tribunal

Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that a Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless the applicant has exhausted all available departmental remedies, including waiting for a decision on a representation for at least six months

Principle established in K. Madhavan v. Union of India (1987) regarding the counting of service in analogous posts for promotion

The court cited Meer Singh v. Union of India and Paramjit Kaur v. Union of India, which highlight that the statutory obligation for an employee to exhaust remedies creates a corresponding "counter obligation" on the department to decide such representations to avoid unnecessary litigation

The Tribunal first addressed the procedural objection of limitation, overruling it by noting that matters concerning pay and service counting constitute a "recurring cause" and that the issue of limitation remains a mixed question of fact and law

On the merits, the Tribunal observed that while the applicant's claim for counting past service is supported by precedents like K. Madhavan and Jasveer Singh v. Union of India, the applicant had a pending representation dated 11.09.2023 that had not yet been decided by the NIA

Applying Section 20 of the Act, the Tribunal reasoned that judicial discipline requires the exhaustion of departmental remedies. However, it emphasized that the department cannot sit indefinitely on such representations, as the Act's scheme implies a duty to pass a reasoned order to prevent premature litigation

To maintain parity with identical matters previously decided by the Bench (e.g., Dinesh Chandra Sati v. NIA), the Tribunal found it appropriate to compel a departmental decision rather than adjudicate the merits immediately

The Tribunal declined to express an opinion on the merits but directed the Competent Authority (NIA) to consider and decide the applicant's representation dated 11.09.2023 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage, with the issue of limitation kept open for the respondents to consider during the decision-making process