Respondents must decide the pending representation through a reasoned, speaking order within eight weeks.

The applicants, working as Library and Information Assistants at VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, sought fixation of pay in the scale of ₹9,300–34,800 with Grade Pay of ₹4,200, together with arrears and consequential benefits from the dates of their initial appointments.

The dispute arose in the context of an earlier O.A. No. 2620/2013, in which the Tribunal had directed the respondents to implement the revised pay structure for eligible incumbents possessing the prescribed qualifications, notwithstanding that the amended Recruitment Rules had not yet been notified.

The respondents challenged that decision before the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 10305/2016.

The High Court directed implementation of the Tribunal’s directions and grant of consequential relief, with 8% interest, within eight weeks.

Although the respondents granted the benefit to the co-applicants in the earlier proceedings, the present applicants contended that they had not received the correct pay fixation.

They submitted representations dated 24 June 2026, which remained undecided.

During the proceedings, the Tribunal questioned whether the O.A. was barred by res judicata, as the underlying issue had already been considered in the earlier litigation.

The applicants ultimately confined their prayer to a direction for disposal of their pending representations by a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the applicants’ claim concerning correct pay fixation was potentially barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the earlier proceedings in O.A. No. 2620/2013 and the subsequent High Court proceedings.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicants’ representations dated 24 June 2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a fixed time.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government servant to approach the Tribunal for adjudication of service-related grievances.

It applied the principle that an administrative authority dealing with a representation must consider it objectively and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also noted the possible applicability of the doctrine of res judicata, under which an issue conclusively adjudicated between the same parties cannot ordinarily be re-litigated.

The earlier Tribunal and High Court directions concerning revised pay fixation were recorded as part of the procedural background, but no fresh determination on their merits was undertaken in the present O.A.

The applicants relied on the earlier Tribunal judgment and the High Court’s enforcement direction to assert that similarly situated employees had received the revised pay benefits, while their own pay had allegedly not been correctly fixed.

Since the representations dated 24 June 2026 were pending, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require the competent respondents to examine the applicants’ grievances administratively.

However, because the applicants expressly restricted their relief to disposal of the representations, and because the issue of res judicata had been raised, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the substantive entitlement to the revised pay scale.

It therefore directed only a time-bound, reasoned and speaking decision, leaving all contentions open.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claim for revised pay fixation.

The pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.