Direction to decide pending representation for service regularization through a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicant, an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), approached the Tribunal seeking regularization of her services, back wages with 18% interest, and other consequential benefits

The applicant had previously submitted representations dated 19.01.2026 and 23.01.2026 to the respondent, which remained pending

Although the Registry initially objected to the Original Application (OA) as being premature, the Tribunal directed the assignment of a regular number because the applicant’s counsel limited the prayer to the disposal of the pending representations

Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondent to dispose of the applicant's pending representations regarding regularization and arrears in a time-bound manner

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications before the Tribunal for the redressal of grievances related to service matters

The court also relied on the administrative law principle that authorities must decide pending representations by passing "reasoned and speaking orders" strictly in accordance with the law

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's counsel restricted the scope of the OA to a request for the time-bound disposal of the representations dated 19.01.2026 and 23.01.2026

Consequently, the Tribunal chose not to adjudicate on the merits of the claims for regularization or back wages at this stage

To ensure administrative accountability and prompt grievance redressal, the Tribunal determined that a direction to the respondent to decide the pending representations would be sufficient to resolve the OA at the admission stage

The Tribunal emphasized that any order passed by the respondent must be "reasoned and speaking" to ensure transparency and legality

It directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order within thirty (30) days of receiving the certified copy of the order

The Tribunal further ordered that if the decision is in favor of the applicant, consequential reliefs must be granted within forty-five (45) days thereafter

No order was made as to costs