Mandate to dispose of pending service representations via reasoned and speaking orders within a prescribed timeline.

Six applicants, working as O.T. Technicians, O.T. Assistants, and CSSD Technicians at ESIC Medical College & Hospitals in Faridabad and Noida, approached the Tribunal seeking the grant of Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) benefits

They claimed entitlement to a Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- upon completion of 10 years of service, including consequential benefits and arrears

The applicants had previously submitted representations to the respondents (Annexure A-1), which remained pending at the time of filing

During the hearing, the Tribunal raised a preliminary query regarding the permissibility of a joint application, noting that MACP is an individual benefit dependent on personal performance records

1. Whether a joint application is permissible for the grant of MACP benefits, considering such benefits are dependent on the individual performance of each employee

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to decide the pending representations of the applicants within a specific timeframe

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which allows aggrieved public servants to seek redressal regarding service matters

It further considered the administrative principle that the grant of MACP is not automatic but is contingent upon an individual employee’s performance evaluation in the years preceding the eligibility date

The Tribunal initially scrutinized the maintainability of the joint petition, observing that because MACP eligibility is tied to individual performance "in the preceding year when the MACP becomes due," a collective claim may not be appropriate

However, the applicants’ counsel narrowed the scope of the prayer, requesting only a time-bound direction for the respondents to dispose of the pending representations

Given that the respondents' counsel raised no objection to this limited request, the Tribunal determined that a disposal at the admission stage was feasible.

The court avoided a merit-based review of the MACP claims, focusing instead on the procedural requirement for the administrative authority to provide a reasoned response to employee grievances

It directed the respondents to decide the applicants’ pending representations (Annexure A-1, pages 15 to 40) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment

All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made