Respondents must decide claims for second in-situ promotion and pay stepping-up through a reasoned order.

The applicant, appointed as a General Line Teacher in 1989, was promoted as Master on 3 August 2006 and subsequently functioned as In-charge Lecturer in 2019.

He claimed that his second in-situ promotion became due in 2006 under SRO 14 of 1996, which provides for in-situ promotion after completion of the prescribed period of substantive service.

The applicant’s authenticated service particulars and representations were submitted to the departmental authorities.

During departmental consideration in 2021, the Chief Accounts Officer observed that although the applicant had been paid salary in the Master’s grade from 2006, his promotion was reflected as having taken place in 2007, and recommended that his claim for second in-situ promotion be placed before the District-level DPC.

The Principal subsequently clarified the pay and promotion position, stating that the service-book entry was incorrect and that the applicant’s pay had actually been drawn from 3 August 2007; the clarification was forwarded to the Directorate.

The applicant also claimed stepping-up of pay under Article 77-B of the J&K Civil Services Regulations, read with SRO 18 dated 19 January 1988, SRO 225 dated 18 August 2005 and SRO 22 dated 1 July 2012.

Despite representations dated 3 April 2023, 28 February 2024 and 11 February 2026, no final decision was communicated.

During hearing, the applicant confined his prayer to a direction requiring the respondents to treat the Original Application as a representation and decide his claims in accordance with law.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to examine and decide the applicant’s claim for second in-situ promotion with effect from 8 June 2006 under SRO 14 of 1996?

2. Whether the respondents should consider the applicant’s claim for stepping-up of pay under Article 77-B of the J&K CSR, read with the relevant SROs?

3. Whether the Original Application could be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat it as a representation and pass a reasoned order within a stipulated period, without adjudicating the merits?

The Tribunal applied the framework governing in-situ promotion under SRO 14 of 1996, including the applicant’s asserted entitlement to consideration of a second in-situ promotion after completion of the requisite period of substantive service.

It also directed consideration of the claim for stepping-up of pay under Article 77-B of the J&K Civil Services Regulations, read with SRO 18 dated 19 January 1988, SRO 225 dated 18 August 2005 and SRO 22 dated 1 July 2012.

The governing procedural principle applied by the Tribunal was that an administrative authority must consider the employee’s representations and supporting documents and communicate a detailed, reasoned and speaking order, while the Tribunal may dispose of proceedings on a limited direction without expressing an opinion on the underlying merits.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had placed authenticated service particulars, departmental correspondence, APRs and repeated representations before the competent authorities, but his claims had not received a final determination.

Since the applicant limited his relief to consideration and disposal of his grievances, and the respondents did not oppose such a course, the Tribunal found that no useful purpose would be served by retaining the Original Application.

It therefore directed the respondents to examine both the claim for second in-situ promotion and the claim for stepping-up of pay, together with all supporting material, strictly under the applicable rules and subject to any legal impediment.

The Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding whether the applicant was substantively entitled to either benefit and left all questions of fact and law open to the competent authority.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application as a representation and decide the applicant’s claims for second in-situ promotion with effect from 8 June 2006 and stepping-up of pay under the applicable rules, after considering the representations and documents on record.

A detailed, reasoned and speaking order was required to be passed within eight weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of the order and communicated to the applicant.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.