Respondents must decide the pending representation through a reasoned, speaking order after considering relied-upon precedents.

The applicant, a Junior Translation Officer/Translation Officer in the Department of Space/ISRO, claimed entitlement to placement in the pay scale of ₹5,500–9,000 pursuant to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission.

He relied on judgments of the Kerala High Court and various Benches of the Tribunal, including the Principal Bench decision in OA No. 3984/2023 dated 12 September 2024, contending that similarly situated employees had received the benefit.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 7 January 2026 and thereafter a legal notice dated 14 July 2026, neither of which was answered by the respondents.

The Tribunal therefore considered whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant’s claim without adjudicating its merits.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation seeking placement in the ₹5,500–9,000 pay scale, in light of the judgments and orders relied upon by him.

2. Whether the respondents should be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant’s claim within a prescribed period.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a competent authority must consider a pending representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, particularly where the claimant relies upon judicial decisions and asserts discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated employees.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive entitlement to the ₹5,500–9,000 pay scale and expressly proceeded without entering into the merits of the claim.

The judgments relied upon by the applicant were directed to be examined by the respondents while deciding the representation.

The applicant established that he had made a representation and issued a legal notice, but that the respondents had not responded.

Since he relied on decisions allegedly granting the claimed pay benefit to similarly situated employees, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to provide the respondents an opportunity to examine the claim in the first instance.

Accordingly, the Original Application itself was directed to be treated as a supplementary representation, together with the pending representation, and the respondents were required to consider the cited judgments and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal deliberately left the substantive merits of the pay-scale claim open.

The respondents were directed to treat the OA as a supplementary representation, consider it along with the pending representation and the judgments relied upon, and pass a final, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within two months of receiving a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

If the representation is decided in the applicant’s favour, he is to receive consequential pay fixation/placement and other consequential benefits in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.