Pending representation must be decided by a reasoned speaking order, with limitation left open.

The applicant, Tanu Priya, filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging her non-consideration in the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in 2013 and seeking retrospective promotion, restoration of seniority, consequential service benefits, and monetary arrears at par with her juniors.

During the hearing, the applicant submitted that she would be satisfied if the competent authority were directed to consider and decide her pending representation concerning the promotion grievance by a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents agreed to decide the representation in accordance with law, while specifically requesting that the issue of limitation—particularly because the matter involved seniority—be kept open.

The Tribunal accordingly considered whether a limited direction for disposal of the representation could be issued without examining the merits of the promotion claim.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation regarding her alleged non-consideration in the 2013 DPC by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the question of limitation, including any delay in raising a seniority-related claim, should remain open for consideration by the respondents.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s claim for retrospective promotion and consequential benefits at the admission stage.

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

It applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a pending representation affecting an employee’s service and promotional rights be considered by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order addressing the applicant’s contentions.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the promotion claim and preserved the respondents’ right to examine limitation in accordance with law, especially where the claim related to seniority.

No precedent was cited or applied.

Since the applicant confined her request to consideration of her pending representation and the respondents fairly agreed to decide it, the Tribunal found that the requirements of natural justice would be satisfied by directing the competent authority to examine each contention and issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from determining whether the applicant was entitled to retrospective promotion, seniority, arrears, or other consequential benefits.

It also preserved the limitation objection, allowing the respondents to decide that issue while considering the representation and without being influenced by the Tribunal’s procedural directions.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 16.03.2026, referred to as Annexure A-8, by addressing each contention and passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order, and to communicate the decision to the applicant at the earliest.

The issue of limitation was expressly kept open.

M.A. No. 3987/2026 was also disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.