Respondents directed to decide the pending representation through a reasoned, speaking order without adjudicating its merits.

The applicant, Satbir Singh Mann, a retired Upper Division Clerk aged 71 years, sought refixation of his pay with effect from 26 April 2000 until his retirement on 30 September 2015, issuance of a revised PPO, payment of consequential pre-retiral and post-retiral benefits and pension arrears, and interest on delayed payment.

The applicant had previously approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2917/2024. By order dated 29 July 2026, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation dated 26 June 2024 by a reasoned and speaking order; the Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the applicant’s claim.

Pursuant to that order, the respondents passed an order dated 28 March 2025. However, the order stated that the applicant’s request for pay refixation from 26 April 2000 was still under consideration in consultation with the Finance Department and would be decided according to the rules.

The applicant contended that no final decision had thereafter been taken despite further representations, including the representation dated 20 July 2026.

During the hearing, the applicant stated that he would be satisfied if the respondents were directed to take the matter to its logical conclusion and pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order. The respondents accepted notice but did not oppose disposal of the matter in those terms.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to take a final decision on the applicant’s pending claim for pay refixation and consequential pensionary benefits, pursuant to the earlier order of the Tribunal and the respondents’ order dated 28 March 2025.

2. Whether the Tribunal should determine the merits of the applicant’s claim for refixation of pay, revised PPO, arrears and interest in the present proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that where an administrative representation remains pending, the competent authority must consider it and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable, stipulated period.

It also applied the principle that a court or tribunal may direct an administrative authority to take a matter to its logical conclusion without adjudicating the substantive merits of the claim, particularly where the applicant seeks only such limited procedural relief.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The Tribunal expressly preserved the applicant’s right to pursue the substantive grievance in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that its earlier order required the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s representation by a reasoned and speaking order, but the respondents’ subsequent communication merely stated that the pay-refixation issue was under examination with the Finance Department.

Since the matter had not reached a final conclusion, and the applicant limited his request to obtaining a final administrative decision, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to issue a direction for completion of the decision-making process.

However, because the earlier order had expressly refrained from examining the merits, the Tribunal again declined to determine whether the applicant was substantively entitled to pay refixation, arrears, revised pension or interest.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim. The pending miscellaneous application was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.