Recovery from salary stayed pending disposal of representations against pay re-fixation and reduction.

The applicant, S. Nagaraj, began his service as a Lower Division Clerk in 1993 and subsequently transitioned to the technical cadre as a Technician ‘B’ in 1994

Over the course of his career, he received multiple promotions, reaching the rank of Foreman ‘D’.

Following his promotion to Assistant Foreman in 2008, his pay was fixed at ₹11,650 + Grade Pay of ₹4,200

However, via an impugned order dated 20.10.2023, the respondents sought to re-fix his pay at a lower scale and initiate recovery of alleged overpayments

Despite the applicant’s objections and pending representations dated 01.11.2023 and 02.02.2026, the respondents effected a recovery of ₹30,000 from his January 2026 salary

The applicant subsequently approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the recovery and restore his pay scale

1. Whether the respondents are mandated to consider and dispose of the applicant's pending representations against pay re-fixation and recovery

2. Whether the recovery from the applicant's salary should be stayed pending a final decision on his administrative representations

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, specifically the requirement for authorities to pass "speaking and well-reasoned orders" when deciding on an employee's grievances

The court exercised its discretionary power to direct a time-bound disposal of administrative representations as a means of ensuring procedural due process

The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had formally challenged the re-fixation and recovery through representations in late 2023 and early 2026, the respondents had not yet passed any orders on those submissions

Given that the applicant's counsel limited the prayer to a request for a time-bound disposal of these representations, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to adjudicate the substantive merits of the pay re-fixation at this stage

To ensure the applicant was not financially prejudiced while his administrative remedy was being exhausted, the Tribunal linked the cessation of recovery to the period required for the respondents to issue a reasoned decision

It directed the Competent Authority to consider the applicant’s representations dated 01.11.2023 and 02.02.2026 and pass a "speaking and well-reasoned order" within two months from the receipt of the Tribunal's order

Crucially, the Tribunal directed the respondents not to recover any further amounts from the applicant's salary until the representations are decided