Pending equal-pay representation must be decided by a reasoned order, with coercive action stayed meanwhile.

The applicants—Suraj Choudhary, Yogesh Kumar and Shivam Maurya—were engaged as a Massager and Ward Attendants, respectively, by the National Institute of Unani Medicine pursuant to Advertisement No. 4/2022 dated 28 December 2022 and the subsequent walk-in selection process.

They joined in February 2023 and were continuously working on consolidated remuneration of ₹24,000 per month.

They claimed that they performed duties similar to those performed by regular employees and, relying on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 4 September 2019, sought payment at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowance from the date of their initial appointment.

The applicants had submitted a common representation dated 17 October 2025, but the respondents had not disposed of it.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the applicants’ pending representation dated 17 October 2025 concerning equal pay for equal work and related service claims?

Whether any coercive action should be taken against the applicants pending disposal of their representation?

Whether the applicants were substantively entitled to equal pay benefits or continuation of service on the merits?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It considered the applicants’ reliance on the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 4 September 2019, read with the earlier OM dated 7 June 1988, which states that where casual workers perform work similar to regular employees, they may be paid at the rate of one-thirtieth of the pay at the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowance for eight hours’ work; where the work is different, minimum wages apply, and casual workers should not be recruited for work of a regular nature.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a pending representation should be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the parties consent to such limited relief.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants had raised substantive claims based on their alleged performance of duties comparable to those of regular employees and had relied on the DoPT OM dated 4 September 2019.

However, since their representation dated 17 October 2025 remained undisposed of, and since the applicants limited their request to consideration of that representation, the Tribunal did not examine the merits of the equal-pay or continuation claims.

With the respondents’ consent, it directed the competent respondents to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

To preserve the applicants’ position pending that decision, it also directed that no coercive action be taken against them in the meantime.

The respondents were directed not to take coercive action against the applicants until disposal of the representation.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claims.

The pending miscellaneous application, if any, was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.