Tribunal Directs Consideration of Pending Representation for Pay Scale Revision.

The applicant, K. Narsing Rao, a Draughtsman Grade-II, invoked the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a revision of his pay scale to Rs. 1400-2300/- from his appointment date as Draughtsman Grade-III

The applicant contended that the respondents’ action of not granting him this benefit, similar to others, was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory

The applicant's claim for the revised pay scale was initially forbidden by Respondent No. 1 via an order dated November 15, 2025, and no subsequent order regarding the pay scale had been issued

The applicant had submitted a pending representation dated June 19, 2025 (Annexure A-7) concerning this matter

Whether the respondents’ action of not granting the applicant the benefit of a revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2300/-, as granted to similarly placed persons, from the date of his appointment as Draughtsman Grade-III is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory

Whether the competent authority among the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated June 19, 2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters concerning persons appointed to public services and posts

The court also implicitly relied on the principles of natural justice, emphasizing that a pending representation should be considered and decided through a reasoned and speaking order, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case

The applicant sought the Tribunal's intervention under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, after his claim for a revised pay scale was not addressed

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's counsel, after initial arguments, expressed satisfaction if a direction was issued to the competent authority to consider his pending representation dated June 19, 2025

The respondents' counsel fairly conceded that the representation would be considered expeditiously if not already decided

The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the case, found it just and proper to ensure that principles of natural justice were met by directing the competent authority to decide the pending representation.

This approach allowed the administrative process to run its course, providing the applicant with a reasoned reply while reserving judgment on the substantive claim

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation dated June 19, 2025 (Annexure A-7), by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order

The order further stipulated that the decision should be communicated to the applicant as soon as possible

The Tribunal expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and the respondents were free to decide the representation in accordance with the law

There was no order as to costs