MES employees entitled to reasoned order on representation seeking parity in Cycle Maintenance Allowance

The applicants, numbering 147 employees (presently serving or retired) of the Military Engineer Services (MES) under the Garrison Engineer Dehradun, filed an Original Application (OA) seeking the release of Cycle (Maintenance) Allowance (CMA).

They allege that following an Office Memorandum (OM) dated July 14, 2017, which enhanced the CMA rate from Rs. 90 to Rs. 180 per month, the respondents discontinued the allowance for the applicants while continuing to grant it to similarly placed employees in other MES units.

The applicants had submitted various representations to the authorities which remained pending at the time of filing.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of Cycle (Maintenance) Allowance for the periods 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2021 and 01.07.2022 onwards.

2. Whether the action of the respondents in discontinuing the CMA for the applicants is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the applications for redressal of grievances before the Tribunal.

It implicitly relied on the principles of Natural Justice and the doctrine of parity, citing precedents from the Chandigarh Bench (OA No. 1600/2024) and its own prior ruling (OA No. 932/2026), which establish that administrative authorities must decide pending representations from employees through reasoned and speaking orders within a reasonable timeframe.

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the claims but focused on the procedural lapse by the respondents in failing to address the applicants' grievances.

The applicants argued that the enhancement order of 2017 resulted in an arbitrary cessation of the allowance for their specific unit, creating a disparity within the same cadre.

Given that similar matters had recently been directed for administrative review by coordinate benches, the Tribunal found that the interests of justice would be served by directing the executive to perform its primary duty of adjudicating the pending representations.

The respondents’ counsel expressed no objection to an order for a time-bound administrative decision.

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Tribunal disposed of the OA at the admission stage by directing the respondents to consider the pending representations (Annexure A-I) and pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.