Respondents directed to decide pending representations by a reasoned, speaking order within six weeks.

The 25 applicants, serving as Assistant Accounts Officers (AAOs) in the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), alleged discriminatory denial of Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Grade Pay of ₹5,400/PB-2, corresponding to Level 9, after completing four years of regular service in Grade Pay of ₹4,800/Level 8.

They asserted that DDA had historically maintained parity with the Central Government Accounts Cadre and had adopted the relevant 7th Central Pay Commission recommendations.

They relied upon the DDA Establishment Order dated 13 November 2017 and the competent authority’s decision dated 27 May 2025 concerning NFU to AAOs, but stated that the benefit had not been extended despite their representations dated 30 October 2025 and 7 November 2025.

The applicants filed the OA seeking relief against the alleged denial.

During hearing, they agreed to have their pending representations considered and decided within a stipulated period.

MA No. 4083/2026 sought permission for the 25 applicants to contest the OA jointly, while MA No. 4084/2026 sought exemption regarding certain deficient annexures and translated documents.

1. Whether the 25 applicants could be permitted to contest the OA jointly, having raised a common grievance and seeking common relief against the same cause of action.

2. Whether the applicants’ pending representations concerning grant of NFU to Level 9 were required to be considered and decided by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

3. Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicants’ entitlement to NFU at the admission stage, or instead direct consideration of their pending representations without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle permitting persons having a common grievance, common cause of action, and common relief to pursue proceedings jointly.

It also applied the principles of natural justice and fair administrative decision-making, requiring the competent authority to consider the applicants’ representations in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable time.

The Tribunal did not decide the substantive entitlement to NFU, the effect of the 7th CPC recommendations, or the legal significance of the DDA orders; instead, it preserved the respondents’ discretion to determine those issues in accordance with law.

Since all 25 applicants were AAOs, relied on substantially identical facts and documents, and challenged the same alleged denial of NFU, the Tribunal allowed them to contest the matter jointly.

Although the applicants alleged parity with Central Government AAOs and referred to prior DDA decisions and allegedly similarly placed employees, the parties ultimately agreed that the pending representations should first be decided by the competent authority.

Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require a formal administrative determination rather than adjudicate the substantive claim at the admission stage.

It therefore directed consideration of the representations and expressly left all merits—including entitlement to NFU—open for decision by the respondents.

MA No. 4084/2026 was also allowed, subject to all just exceptions, in relation to the deficient annexures and translated documents.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Tribunal directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ representations dated 30 October 2025 and 7 November 2025 by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within six weeks from receipt or production of a certified copy of the order.

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage, with pending MAs also disposed of and no order as to costs.