Policy decisions lie with the administration; respondents must decide employees’ representations through a reasoned, speaking order.

The applicants, employees of the Pathology Division of the Department of Atomic Energy Hospital, Kalpakkam, were required to perform regular eight-hour duties, field work, shift duties and emergency call duties.

They contended that frequent and prolonged call duties were being imposed in addition to their regular working hours, although their appointment orders did not expressly provide for such duties.

They asserted that they were willing to work in a round-the-clock shift system instead of the existing call-duty arrangement.

The applicants relied on information obtained under the Right to Information Act indicating that their duties were not covered by the Essential Services Maintenance Act and that no specific Central Civil Services Rules or Department of Personnel and Training orders mandated such call duties.

Representations seeking replacement of the call-duty system with a round-the-clock shift system were allegedly not accepted, and the applicants consequently filed the Original Application seeking appropriate directions.

1. Whether the Tribunal could direct the respondents to discontinue the call-duty system and adopt a round-the-clock shift-duty system in the Pathology Division

2. Whether the applicants were required to first pursue their grievance through a representation before the competent administrative authorities

The Tribunal applied the principle that the formulation or alteration of an administrative duty system, including the choice between call duties and round-the-clock shift duties, is primarily a matter of policy and administrative decision-making falling within the respondents’ domain.

No specific statutory provision, rule, or precedent was relied upon as the basis for granting the requested substantive direction.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it was not adjudicating the merits of the applicants’ grievance and instead directed consideration of a representation in accordance with law.

The relief sought would require the Tribunal to prescribe a particular system for organising duties in the respondents’ medical establishment.

Since the adoption of call duties or shift duties involves administrative and policy considerations, the Tribunal held that it could not itself impose the requested arrangement.

However, recognising that the applicants had raised a grievance regarding excessive call duties, the Tribunal granted them liberty to submit a representation to the respondents.

The respondents were directed to examine the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order within three months of its receipt, without the Tribunal expressing any view on the merits of the claim.

The applicants were granted liberty to submit a representation, which the respondents were directed to consider and decide by a reasoned and speaking order within three months.

The Original Application was accordingly closed, with no adjudication on the merits.