Tribunal directs respondents to treat OA as representation and decide within four weeks.

The applicant, Mohammad Altaf Mir, was appointed as a Constable in the J&K Police Department on November 19, 1999.

In 2002, a complaint was lodged with the Crime Branch, Srinagar, regarding alleged irregularities in police appointments, leading to the registration of FIR No. 03 of 2008.

During the investigation, the applicant's service books, along with those of co-appointees, were seized.

The applicant was suspended on August 13, 2011, and subsequently reinstated on July 28, 2012.

The Crime Branch filed a challan in 2022, and the criminal trial is currently pending, with the original complainant having turned hostile.

The applicant and co-accused successfully sought the release of their service books for one month from the trial court on July 10, 2024, to facilitate service entries.

Despite being similarly situated to other co-accused (Mohd. Ishaq, Shameem Ahmad, and Ct. Nissar Hussain Dar) who have received 7th Pay Commission benefits and other service benefits, the respondents have selectively denied these benefits and annual increments to the applicant.

The applicant has made repeated representations on August 14, 2018, and June 16, 2022, seeking parity in service benefits, which have not been decided.

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the applicant's pending representations and consider releasing withheld service benefits, including 7th Pay Commission arrears and increments, on par with co-appointees/co-accused.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to maintain complete parity between the applicant and similarly situated officials, including Mohd. Ishaq, Shameem Ahmad, and Ct. Nissar Hussain Dar, during the pendency of the criminal trial regarding service benefits and entries in the service book.

The court's decision was primarily based on the principle of administrative due process, requiring public authorities to consider and decide representations made by aggrieved parties in a time-bound and reasoned manner.

The underlying legal principle, though not explicitly cited by a specific statute or precedent in the text, appears to be the expectation of fair administrative action and the right to have grievances addressed, especially when allegations of discriminatory treatment are raised in the context of service benefits.

The applicant contended that despite being similarly situated to co-accused who received 7th Pay Commission benefits and other service benefits, he was denied them.

The ongoing criminal trial, where the complainant turned hostile, and the fact that the applicant has not been convicted or departmentally punished since his 2012 reinstatement, were highlighted as reasons for seeking parity.

The applicant had submitted multiple representations that remained undecided.

Recognizing the unresolved nature of these grievances and the respondents' lack of objection, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the application as a representation.

This approach allows the administrative authority to address the specific allegations of discriminatory treatment and denial of service benefits in the first instance, without the Tribunal prejudging the merits.

The Tribunal clarified that this direction does not imply a decision in favor of the applicant but mandates due consideration of the issues raised.

The Tribunal did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

There was no order as to costs.