Direction to treat Original Application as representation for release of withheld pay and retirement benefits.

The applicant was appointed as a Daily Rated Worker in the Social Forestry Department on May 1, 1986, and was regularized as a Helper on April 1, 1994.

He eventually retired as a Junior Assistant on March 31, 2024.

The applicant alleged that the respondent department failed to correctly implement various pay revision orders (SROs) during his tenure, leading to incorrect pay fixation and recurring financial loss.

This discrepancy was reportedly discovered only after retirement during the scrutiny of his pension case by the Accountant General.

The applicant contended that Respondent No. 5 (Treasury Officer) arbitrarily withheld sanctioned amounts rightfully belonging to him.

Consequently, the applicant sought a direction for the respondents to treat the Original Application (OA) as a representation and release the withheld amounts as per the existing sanction order.

Whether the respondents should be directed to treat the Original Application as a formal representation and decide the applicant's claim regarding withheld pay and pensionary benefits in a time-bound manner.

Administrative pay fixation norms under SRO-311, SRO-397, SRO-225, and SRO-154 of 1997, as well as Government Order No. 46 of 2012.

Article 177-A of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) Vol. I, which governs pay fixation procedures.

Principle of administrative equity, allowing for the disposal of a matter via a directed representation when a limited prayer is made without an adjudication on the merits.

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s position that as a low-ranking official, he was unaware of the technicalities of pay fixation until the Accountant General's scrutiny post-retirement.

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel limited the prayer to a request that the OA be treated as a representation for the release of funds already covered under a sanction order (Annexure-II).

The respondents, through the Deputy Advocate General, did not object to this procedural direction.

The Tribunal, choosing not to delve into the merits of the pay fixation errors, emphasized the need for a sympathetic consideration of the claim based on the existing departmental sanction.

It reasoned that since a sanction order already existed at page 19 of the paper book, the respondents were primarily required to finalize the administrative process and release the funds.

It directed the respondents to treat the OA as a representation and decide the case in a "sympathetic manner" in light of the sanction order annexed as Annexure-II.

The respondents were ordered to obtain any necessary sanctions from the competent authority and release the withheld amount within eight weeks from the receipt of the certified order.

All connected miscellaneous applications were also disposed of with no order as to costs.