Promotion-policy grievances must be considered in light of precedent through reasoned orders.

The 63 applicants are serving as Scientist-B in the National Informatics Centre (NIC), Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

They sought consideration under the Personnel Policy for Group ‘A’ S&T Officers dated 19 September 2016, contending that they should not be excluded merely because their promotion to Group ‘A’ Scientist-B occurred after that date.

They relied on the Tribunal’s decision dated 12 August 2026 in O.A. No. 3393/2026, which they said addressed the same issue, and stated that their representations had not been decided.

The respondents accepted notice and sought time to file a reply or obtain instructions.

1. Whether the applicants’ grievances were covered by the Tribunal’s decision dated 12 August 2026 in O.A. No. 3393/2026.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicants’ pending representations in light of that decision.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which provides the basis for an aggrieved person to apply to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal treated its decision dated 12 August 2026 in O.A. No. 3393/2026 as covering the issue raised by the applicants and directed the competent authority to consider their grievances in light of that decision.

The Tribunal noted that the issue raised by the applicants was similar to, and squarely covered by, the earlier decision in O.A. No. 3393/2026.

Rather than adjudicating individual eligibility or granting promotion-related benefits, it directed the competent authority in Respondent No. 2 to consider the applicants’ grievances against the background of that decision and to determine their pending representations by reasoned, speaking orders.

It made no determination on the applicants’ substantive eligibility or entitlement to consequential benefits.

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