Facts
The applicants, a registered union and an individual employee (FGM HS-I) under the Military Engineer Services (MES), filed an Original Application (OA) seeking the release of Cycle Maintenance Allowance (CMA) for the periods 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2021 and from 01.07.2022 onwards
Source reference: p. 3, para 1They contended that CMA is sanctioned based on the post rather than the individual, as per the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) and Office Memorandum (OM) dated 14.07.2017
Source reference: p. 3, para 2Despite submitting representations on 12.08.2025 and 10.02.2026, the respondents failed to act
Source reference: p. 4, para 3Procedurally, the Tribunal allowed Miscellaneous Applications for exemption from filing certain documents and for permission to contest the matter jointly
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of Cycle Maintenance Allowance (CMA) for the specified periods in terms of the 7th CPC recommendations and OM dated 14.07.2017
Source reference: p. 3, para 22. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to decide the applicants' pending representations in a time-bound manner in light of earlier judicial precedents
Source reference: p. 4, para 3Law Applied
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which provides the right to aggrieved persons to apply to the Tribunal for redressal of grievances
Source reference: p. 3Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, regarding the maintainability of joint applications
Source reference: p. 2OM dated 14.07.2017 regarding 7th CPC recommendations for Cycle Maintenance Allowance
Source reference: p. 3Principles of natural justice and the precedent established in the Tribunal’s order dated 23.12.2024 in OA No. 1600/2024, which directed the consideration of similar representations
Source reference: p. 4, para 5Reasoning
The Tribunal focused on the procedural remedy rather than the merits of the allowance claim. It noted that the applicants’ representations remained pending before the competent authority
Source reference: p. 4During the hearing, the applicants limited their request to a direction for the respondents to consider these representations in a time-bound manner, citing a similar previous order by the Tribunal
Source reference: p. 4, para 3The respondents’ counsel did not object to this limited direction but requested that the issue of limitation (delay in filing) remain open
Source reference: p. 4, para 4The Tribunal determined that the interests of justice would be served by requiring the respondents to pass a "reasoned and speaking order," thereby ensuring the administration applies its mind to the statutory/policy claims of the employees while preserving the respondents' right to contest based on limitation
Source reference: p. 5, para 5-6Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA at the admission stage without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case
It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations dated 12.08.2025 and 10.02.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order
Source reference: p. 4-5, para 5The holding specified that this consideration is subject to the respondents' right to raise contentions regarding limitation
Source reference: p. 5, para 6All pending MAs were disposed of, and no costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 5, para 8-9Original Court PDF
Uttrakhand m e s karmachari sangathan dehradun acting through rakesh KumarvsM/O DEFENCE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in