Respondents must pass a reasoned and speaking order on the applicant’s representation within six weeks.

The applicant, a retired employee aged about 64 years, filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking consequential service and retiral benefits allegedly arising from the Tribunal’s judgment in O.A. No. 566/2007 and the consequential implementation memorandum dated 28 May 2008.

She sought, inter alia, restoration of Group ‘A’ status, ACP/MACP and promotional benefits, revision of pay and pension, arrears, gratuity, leave encashment, and interest.

The applicant relied on decisions in favour of similarly situated officers, including orders in O.A. Nos. 1138/2023, 57/2022, 58/2022, 59/2022 and 423/2022.

She had submitted a representation dated 22 May 2026 requesting MACP, promotion, arrears and other retirement benefits.

During the hearing, counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents were directed to consider the representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the applicant’s representation dated 22 May 2026 concerning MACP, promotion, arrears and consequential retiral benefits.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicant’s substantive entitlement to the benefits claimed under the judgment in O.A. No. 566/2007 and subsequent implementation orders.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government employee or eligible person to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of service grievances.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a competent authority must duly consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

Although the applicant relied on the judgment in O.A. No. 566/2007, the implementation memorandum dated 28 May 2008, and subsequent decisions concerning similarly situated officers, the Tribunal did not determine the substantive legal effect or applicability of those authorities in the present case.

The applicant asserted that her claims were covered by earlier Tribunal and Supreme Court proceedings and by benefits granted to similarly situated officers.

However, after counsel limited the requested relief to consideration of the representation, the Tribunal declined to examine the merits of the claims, including entitlement to restoration of status, MACP, promotion, revised pension, arrears or interest.

To ensure administrative consideration of the pending grievance, the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine the representation dated 22 May 2026 and issue a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The respondents were directed to carefully consider the representation dated 22 May 2026 and pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

A copy of the Original Application could be shared with the respondents’ counsel, and there was no order as to costs.