Mandamus for Time-Bound Disposal of Pending Representation Seeking Arrears of Regularization and Statutory Pay Scales

The applicant, Sh. Kanhiya, is employed as a Safai Karamchari under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).

He approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the respondents to release outstanding arrears amounting to ₹15,61,231/- for the period from April 2004 to December 2019.

These arrears arose from the regularization of his appointment and the subsequent revision of his pay scale to ₹2550 - 3200 (pre-revised).

Despite submitting a representation dated 19.08.2025 regarding these dues, the matter remained pending with the respondents.

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and decide upon the applicant's pending representation regarding the payment of regularization-related arrears and interest.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to adjudicate grievances regarding service matters.

The court also applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a reasoned and speaking order from administrative authorities when a representation is submitted.

Furthermore, it took note of judicial consistency by referring to a precedent set by a coordinate Bench in Sh. Sita Saran vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. (O.A. No. 4251/2025), which dealt with similar claims for arrears.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the financial claim but focused on the procedural lapse of the respondents in failing to address the applicant's representation.

Given the applicant's willingness to limit his prayer to a time-bound disposal of his representation, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate the underlying facts of the arrears.

The Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be met if the competent authority was directed to evaluate the claim in light of existing law and relevant precedents, such as the Sita Saran case.

The Tribunal emphasized that the administrative decision must be "reasoned and speaking" to ensure transparency and legal compliance.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to decide the applicant’s representation dated 19.08.2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving the court's order.

The court further directed that the decision be communicated to the applicant immediately thereafter, with no order as to costs.