Reasoned disposal complies with an order to consider a representation, even when relief is denied.

The applicants filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 3 October 2024 in OA No. 1130/2024.

That order required the respondents to treat the OA as a representation, consider it along with a legal notice, and issue a reasoned order within the specified period; consequential relief was to follow if the claim was found acceptable.

The order expressly left the merits undecided.

The respondents considered the representation and granted the applicants the benefit of the first MACP, but found them ineligible for the second MACP.

The applicants argued in the contempt proceedings that they were also entitled to the second MACP and interest.

Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 3 October 2024 by considering and disposing of the applicants’ representation.

Whether the applicants could obtain the second MACP benefit and interest through the contempt proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the terms of its earlier order: where a direction requires the authority to consider a representation and pass an appropriate order, compliance is assessed by whether that consideration and decision have occurred—not by whether the authority has granted the relief sought.

Consequential relief is required only if the claim is found acceptable.

The contempt proceeding was not a forum to determine the applicants’ underlying entitlement to the second MACP or interest, which the earlier order had left open.

No statute or precedent was cited.

The respondents had considered the representation and issued a decision granting the first MACP while rejecting eligibility for the second.

Because the earlier order required consideration and disposal, rather than a particular outcome, the rejection of the second MACP claim did not establish non-compliance.

The Tribunal therefore declined to determine the applicants’ substantive entitlement or interest in the contempt proceeding and left those claims to be pursued before an appropriate forum.

It granted the applicants liberty to approach the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, regarding the denial of the second MACP benefit or non-payment of interest.