Respondents must treat the application as a representation and decide the claims by a speaking order within six weeks.

The applicant, a Class-IV/MTS employee appointed in the Health Department on 1 December 1990, was granted the first and second time-bound promotions upon completion of nine and eighteen years of service, respectively. He was subsequently granted a third time-bound/in-situ promotion by order dated 16 December 2022, and the corresponding monetary benefits were paid until 2024.

The respondents thereafter withheld the monetary benefits and recovered amounts already paid, allegedly without issuing a speaking order or assigning reasons.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 8 December 2025 seeking restoration of the third promotion benefits, release of arrears, refund of the recovered amount, and interest, but the representation remained undecided.

During the hearing, both parties agreed that the Original Application could be treated as a representation and decided by the competent authorities.

1. Whether the Original Application could be treated as a representation and disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the applicant’s claims and accompanying documents in accordance with law.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s claim concerning the withholding and recovery of monetary benefits attached to the third time-bound/in-situ promotion by a speaking and reasoned order.

3. Whether the applicant was substantively entitled to restoration of the third time-bound/in-situ promotion benefits, arrears, refund of recovered amounts, and interest.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principles governing disposal of an Original Application on the basis of a consensual limited relief, without adjudicating the underlying merits.

It directed the competent authority to consider the applicant’s claim in accordance with the applicable law, rules and regulations, and to pass a speaking and reasoned order within a prescribed period.

The principles of natural justice and fair administrative decision-making required the applicant to be associated with the consideration process and furnished a copy of the decision.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not filed their reply, while the applicant limited his request to a direction for consideration of his pending claim.

In view of the parties’ agreement and the limited nature of the relief sought, the Tribunal found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Original Application pending.

It therefore refrained from deciding whether the applicant was legally entitled to the third in-situ promotion benefits, arrears, refund, or interest.

Instead, it required the respondents to examine the Original Application and annexures—particularly Annexure-4—in accordance with the applicable rules and to determine the applicant’s entitlement, subject to any legal or factual impediment.

The respondents were directed to treat the O.A. and its annexures as a representation, associate the applicant in the decision-making process, and decide his claim—particularly with reference to Annexure-4—by a speaking and reasoned order within six weeks.

A copy of the decision was to be furnished to the applicant.

All questions of fact and law, including entitlement to the withheld or recovered benefits and interest, were left open for determination by the competent authority.

Parties were directed to bear their own costs.