Final adverse action stayed pending consideration of representation and mandatory disbursement of outstanding salary.

The applicant filed an Original Application (OA) alleging that the respondents prevented him from performing his duties, which he construed as an oral termination of his services.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents issued a speaking order dated April 6, 2026.

This order granted the applicant liberty to submit a representation against any proposed action and guaranteed that no final adverse action would be taken until the expiry of the notice period and due consideration of his representation.

Whether the applicant's grievance regarding the alleged oral termination and non-payment of salary survives in light of the respondents' issuance of a speaking order and their undertaking to disburse arrears.

The Tribunal applied the principles of administrative law concerning "speaking orders" and the requirements of procedural fairness.

It emphasized the principle of Audi Alteram Partem by ensuring the applicant had a formal opportunity to represent his case before any adverse action was finalized.

The court applied the rule that the State and its instrumentalities are bound by the undertakings and statements made by their legal counsel during judicial proceedings.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents’ issuance of the speaking order dated April 6, 2026, effectively regularized the dispute process.

By providing a stipulated notice period for the applicant to submit supporting documents and a commitment that no adverse action would be taken prematurely, the respondents addressed the applicant's primary grievance regarding arbitrary termination.

The respondents' counsel provided a specific undertaking to disburse the applicant's salary from his date of joining within three days.

The Tribunal reasoned that these subsequent administrative actions and commitments provided sufficient relief to the applicant at this stage, thereby resolving the immediate controversy of the OA.

Specifically, the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant’s salary arrears within three days from the date of the order.

No order was made as to costs.