Direction to decide representation for salary release and in-situ promotions parity with similarly situated employees.

The applicants (22 individuals), primarily residents of District Poonch, are employees in the Education Department of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

They approached the Tribunal seeking directions for the release of unpaid salary for the period between 04.08.2007 and 08.03.2008

Additionally, they sought the grant of the 1st in-situ promotion effective from 04.08.2016 and the 2nd in-situ promotion effective from 04.08.2025, claiming parity with similarly situated proforma respondents (Respondents 7 to 10)

During the hearing, the applicants restricted their plea, requesting the Tribunal to direct the respondents to treat the Original Application (O.A.) as a formal representation and decide the same in light of a previously filed compliance report dated 20.03.2026 in a related matter (M.A. No. 338 of 2025)

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the release of arrears of salary and the grant of periodic in-situ promotions on the basis of parity with similarly situated employees

2. Whether the Tribunal should dispose of the matter at the admission stage by directing the administrative authorities to decide the claim via a reasoned and speaking order

The Tribunal applied the principle of administrative parity and the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies, implying that similarly situated employees must be treated equally in matters of service benefits and promotions

The court relied on the procedural requirement for the executive to pass "reasoned and speaking orders" when adjudicating employee representations regarding service benefits such as "in-situ promotions" and "consequential benefits"

It further utilized its discretionary power under the Administrative Tribunals Act to expedite justice by directing a time-bound administrative review based on existing compliance reports

The Tribunal observed that the applicants were not seeking an immediate adjudication on the merits of their service claims but were requesting a directed administrative review

The court determined that keeping the O.A. pending would serve no useful purpose if the grievances could be addressed by the competent authority

By directing the Chief Education Officer, Poonch (Respondent No. 3) to treat the O.A. as a representation, the Tribunal linked the applicants' claims to the respondents' own prior filings, specifically the compliance report dated 20.03.2026

The analysis centered on ensuring that if the applicants are indeed "similarly situated" to respondents 7 through 10, the respondents are legally obligated to extend the same benefits to avoid discriminatory treatment in public employment

It directed Respondent No. 3 (Chief Education Officer, Poonch) to treat the O.A. as a representation regarding the release of salary (04.08.2007 to 08.03.2008) and the grant of 1st and 2nd in-situ promotions

The respondents are ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, ensuring that benefits are granted if the applicants are found to be similarly situated to the proforma respondents

No order was made as to costs