Direction to decide pending representation against pay re-fixation and recovery through a reasoned speaking order.

The applicant, a retired employee of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), challenged a Pension Payment Order (PPO) dated February 16, 2022

He alleged that his basic pay was arbitrarily reduced from Rs. 93,800 to Rs. 90,300, resulting in a recovery of Rs. 6,28,126 from his gratuity post-superannuation

The applicant sought the quashing of the PPO, restoration of his basic pay, a refund of the recovered amount with interest, and a revision of his retiral benefits

Prior to filing the Original Application (OA), the applicant submitted a representation to the respondents on January 28, 2026, which remained pending

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant's pending representation regarding pay re-fixation and recovery of gratuity in a time-bound manner

The Tribunal applied the administrative principle of "reasoned and speaking orders," which requires authorities to provide clear justifications for their decisions on grievances

It further operated under the procedural norms of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, allowing for the disposal of matters at the admission stage based on the consent of parties to seek an administrative remedy first

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s counsel proposed a limited relief: a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation dated January 28, 2026

The respondents’ counsel did not object to this proposal

Because the core grievance—the reduction of pay and subsequent recovery—was already the subject of an internal representation, the Tribunal determined that the appropriate course of action was to mandate the respondents to finalize that administrative process

The Tribunal explicitly avoided addressing the merits of the pay re-fixation or the legality of the recovery, leaving those issues to be determined by the respondents in the first instance

This order must be issued within a stipulated period of eight weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment

No costs were awarded