Respondents directed to decide pending representation for stepping up of pay in light of settled judicial precedents.

The applicant, Shri Anand Kumar, is currently serving as an Inspector (Group ‘B’) within the Income Tax Department under the Ministry of Finance

He filed the present Original Application (OA) seeking a "stepping up of pay" to achieve parity with his colleagues

The applicant asserts that his case is identical to the matter decided by the Tribunal in OA No. 1139/2022, which was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble High Court

On October 8, 2025, the applicant submitted a formal representation to the respondents relying on these judicial precedents; however, the respondents had not passed any orders on said representation at the time of filing

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to consider and decide upon a pending representation regarding the stepping up of pay in light of settled judicial precedents?

The court applied the principles of administrative justice and the doctrine of parity in service matters, specifically the "stepping up of pay" to rectify seniority-based pay anomalies

The Tribunal relied on its own previous adjudication in OA No. 1139/2022 and the subsequent affirmation by the Hon’ble High Court, which established the eligibility for relief in similar circumstances

the court emphasized the administrative duty to dispose of representations via "reasoned and speaking orders" to reduce avoidable litigation

The Tribunal did not delve into the substantive merits of the applicant's claim for pay stepping up

Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse of the respondents in failing to adjudicate the applicant’s representation dated October 8, 2025.

Given that the respondents’ counsel expressed no objection to a directed consideration of the matter [p. 3, para. 3], the Tribunal linked the facts—specifically the unanswered representation and the existence of binding precedents (OA 1139/2022)—to the requirement of administrative efficiency.

The court reasoned that a time-bound direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned order would serve the interest of justice and prevent unnecessary judicial backlog

It directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant's representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of the order

The decision must be communicated to the applicant forthwith

No order was made as to costs