Mandatory Time-Bound Consideration of Representations for Payment of Regularization Arrears and Consequential Benefits

Four applicants, employed as Safai Karamcharis by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), moved the Tribunal seeking payment of arrears resulting from their regularization on 01.04.2019 and subsequent pay re-fixation under the 7th CPC.

Although a bill for the arrears was approved (Annexure A-4), the payments remained outstanding.

The applicants submitted a formal representation to the respondent on 13.01.2026, which received no response.

Consequently, they filed OA 1743/2026 for relief and MA 2296/2026 for permission to sue jointly.

1. Whether the applicants, sharing a common cause of action, should be permitted to pursue the litigation jointly.

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondent to decide the applicants' pending representation regarding the payment of arrears and consequential benefits in a time-bound manner.

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers it to adjudicate disputes regarding the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services.

The court also applied the Principle of Natural Justice, which dictates that administrative representations concerning legitimate claims (such as unpaid salary arrears) must be considered and decided through a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable timeframe.

The Tribunal first addressed the Misc. Application (MA), noting that the four applicants shared a common intention and cause of action regarding regularization benefits; thus, joint contest was permitted to ensure judicial efficiency.

Regarding the merits of the Original Application (OA), the Tribunal focused on the procedural lapse by the respondent. Since the applicants’ pay had already been re-fixed and the arrears bill approved as per Annexure A-4, there was a prima facie entitlement to the funds.

The Tribunal did not delve into the substantive merits of the financial claim but emphasized that the respondent’s failure to respond to the representation dated 13.01.2026 necessitated a direction for administrative action to satisfy the requirements of natural justice.

The Tribunal directed the respondent’s competent authority to decide the pending representation dated 13.01.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receiving the court’s order.

The Tribunal clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the claims and the respondents were free to decide the matter in accordance with the law.

The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.