Exhaustion of statutory remedies is a mandatory prerequisite for admitting an application under the Administrative Tribunals Act.

The applicant, Ritesh Rawal, joined the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as a Constable on August 20, 2001.

He was sent on deputation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2009 and was subsequently absorbed into the NIA on October 13, 2014, in the same pay scale.

The applicant seeks to have his past service in the CISF counted as regular service for the purpose of seniority and promotions (specifically to the posts of Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector) within the NIA.

Despite submitting representations in August 2023 and December 2025, the respondents failed to pass any orders.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his past service and convene a review DPC.

1. Whether the application is maintainable or premature under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the pending representations.

2. Whether the remedy of filing a representation is an efficacious and mandatory exhaustion of departmental remedies before approaching the Tribunal.

Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that the Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless all available departmental remedies/representations have been exhausted.

Under Section 20(2)(b), a person is deemed to have exhausted remedies if six months have passed since a representation was made and no final order was passed.

K. Madhavan vs Union of India (1987) regarding service reckoning.

Tribunal precedents such as Meer Singh v. Union of India and Devl Dutt Sharma v. Union of India, which established the "counter-obligation" of authorities to decide representations to avoid unnecessary litigation.

The Tribunal analyzed the statutory bar under Section 20 of the Act, noting that the applicant had filed a representation on December 9, 2025, which remained pending.

While the Registry initially objected to the OA as premature, the Bench overruled the objection to provide an OA number but maintained that the statutory scheme requires the executive to first decide on grievances.

The Court observed that while the applicant cited several precedents (Jasveer Singh and K. Madhavan) to argue for the counting of analogous service, the core procedural requirement of allowing the Department to act had not been satisfied.

Aligning with similar orders passed in Vijay Kumar Singh v. NIA and Sanjeev Kumar v. NIA, the Tribunal reasoned that directing a time-bound decision on the pending representation would meet the ends of justice without the Tribunal prematurely adjudicating the merits of the service claim.

The Tribunal directed the Competent Authority/NIA to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated December 9, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage with liberty to the applicant to approach the Tribunal if still aggrieved following the decision.