Respondents must treat the application as a representation and decide it by a reasoned order within eight weeks.

The applicants, Prem Nath, Mohd. Wasim and Ijod Hussain, sought consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Inspector in the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department.

They claimed parity with Ashok Kumar, Kamlesh Kumar and Raghbir Singh, who were allegedly considered and granted retrospective promotion despite having retired before the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”) was convened, pursuant to Government Order No. 194-DFCS&CAJ of 2021 dated 16 November 2021.

The applicants sought placement of their names before the DPC, retrospective promotion, and consequential monetary and pensionary benefits.

Their joint pursuit of the Original Application was permitted under Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

At the hearing, counsel for the applicants limited the prayer and requested that the Original Application be treated as a representation for consideration of their claim and convening of the DPC.

Whether the applicants’ Original Application could be treated as a formal representation for consideration of their claim for promotion to the post of Chief Inspector and for convening of the DPC.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicants’ representation, including their claim of parity with similarly situated employees, by a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved employee may approach the Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

It applied Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting applicants to join and pursue an Original Application collectively.

The Tribunal further directed the competent authorities to consider the applicants’ representation in accordance with the relevant service rules and to pass a reasoned and speaking order, thereby requiring an objective administrative determination without expressing any view on the merits of the promotion claim.

Since the applicants’ counsel confined the relief sought at the hearing to consideration of their claim as a representation, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate the merits of their entitlement to retrospective promotion, parity, or consequential benefits at the admission stage.

Instead, it directed the respondents to treat the Original Application, read with the applicants’ earlier representation dated 2 January 2024, as a formal representation and to decide it in accordance with the applicable rules.

This approach preserved the respondents’ authority to examine the applicants’ eligibility, the applicability of Government Order No. 194-DFCS&CAJ of 2021, and the claim of parity with the named employees, while ensuring that the decision would be reasoned and procedurally accountable.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application as a formal representation, take into account the representation dated 2 January 2024, and decide the matter in accordance with the relevant rules by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.