Direction to decide pending representation against post-retirement recovery via reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant, a retired Executive Engineer (Civil) from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), challenged the reduction of his basic pay from Rs. 88,400 to Rs. 85,800 as reflected in his Pension Payment Order (PPO)

Following this reduction, the respondents recovered Rs. 5,20,130 from his gratuity post-superannuation

The applicant submitted a written representation on June 3, 2025, against these actions, which remained pending without a response

Consequently, the applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) seeking restoration of pay, refund of the recovered amount with interest, and revision of his PPO

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant's pending representation regarding pay reduction and gratuity recovery through a reasoned and speaking order

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985

It applied the Principles of Natural Justice, which necessitate that administrative grievances be addressed through a fair and transparent process

The Tribunal further relied on the principle of consistency in judicial orders, citing its own precedents in OA No. 553/2026 (decided on 13.02.2026) and OA No. 872/2026 (decided on 11.03.2026), where directions were issued to decide pending representations in similar circumstances

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's primary grievance—the arbitrary reduction of pay and recovery of funds after retirement—had been raised before the authorities via a representation that was never adjudicated

The applicant’s counsel requested a similar direction as granted in previous OAs involving comparable facts

The respondents’ counsel conceded that the representation could be considered in accordance with the law

The Tribunal reasoned that the principles of natural justice would be satisfied if the competent authority was mandated to pass a "reasoned and speaking order," thereby ensuring the applicant's claims are evaluated on their merits before the court intervenes further

The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the actual merits of the pay reduction or recovery at this stage

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated June 3, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment

The respondents were ordered to communicate this decision to the applicant at the earliest

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded