Respondents must treat the Original Application as a representation and issue a reasoned order within six weeks.

The applicants, employees posted in the Transmission Line Maintenance Division-IV, Jammu, challenged the respondents’ decision to recover alleged excess House Rent Allowance/City Compensatory Allowance (HRA/CCA) from their salaries.

The immediate grievance arose from letter No. MD/JKPTL/AC/2145-48 dated 16 June 2026 directing recovery of house rent, followed by a request for action taken dated 9 August 2026.

The applicants subsequently requested that the Original Application be treated as a representation and decided within a stipulated period.

Their accompanying Miscellaneous Application seeking permission to join and pursue the proceedings collectively was allowed under Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

Whether the applicants’ challenge to the proposed recovery of alleged excess HRA/CCA could be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat the Original Application as a formal representation and decide it by a reasoned and speaking order, without adjudicating the merits.

Whether the respondents should be directed to reconsider the applicants’ entitlement to HRA/CCA with reference to the applicable rules, Government orders, posting orders, place of duty, headquarters and departmental communications.

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

It also applied Rule 4(5) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, permitting applicants with a common grievance to join and pursue an application collectively.

The Tribunal further applied the administrative-law requirement that a competent authority deciding a representation must pass a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the decision concerns recovery of service-related allowances.

The substantive entitlement to HRA/CCA was left to be determined by the respondents under the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance) Rules, 1992, applicable Government orders, and the relevant service records.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ counsel confined the request to disposal of the Original Application with a direction to the respondents to treat it as a representation and decide it within a fixed period.

Since the applicants’ entitlement to HRA/CCA depended on factual and regulatory examination—including their posting orders, place of duty, headquarters, applicable rules and departmental communications—the Tribunal declined to enter into the merits at the admission stage.

Instead, it converted the pleaded grievance into a formal representation and required the respondents to undertake the initial determination.

The direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks ensured that the applicants’ claim and objection to recovery would receive a considered administrative decision.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage without adjudication on the merits.

The respondents were directed to treat the Original Application as a formal representation and pass a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the Tribunal’s order.

No specific declaration of entitlement to HRA/CCA or final prohibition on recovery was granted; those matters were left for determination by the respondents in accordance with the applicable rules, orders and relevant records.

No order was made as to costs.