Tribunal directs time-bound disposal of pending representation through a reasoned and speaking order without adjudicating merits.

The applicant, an employee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, filed an Original Application (OA) seeking multiple reliefs, including the payment of salary differences from January 2016 at par with regular employees, grant of MACP/ACP benefits, pay fixation under the 7th Pay Commission, and payment of gratuity and leave encashment arrears

The Registry of the Tribunal initially raised an objection that the OA was premature

the applicant’s counsel submitted that a representation dated "nil" (Annexure A-1) regarding these grievances was still pending before the respondents and requested a limited prayer for its time-bound disposal

The matter was heard at the admission stage

1. Whether the Original Application should be entertained and assigned a regular number despite the Registry’s objection regarding it being premature

2. Whether a direction can be issued to the respondents to decide on the applicant’s pending representation without the Tribunal adjudicating the merits of the case

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which stipulates the procedure for filing applications before the Tribunal

the principle of administrative law that requires authorities to dispose of pending representations through "reasoned and speaking orders" within a reasonable timeframe to ensure the exhaustion of departmental remedies

The Tribunal addressed the procedural hurdle of prematurity by noting that the applicant had narrowed the scope of the prayer to the disposal of a pending representation rather than an immediate adjudication of the substantive claims

By directing the Registry to assign a regular number despite the objection, the court prioritized administrative efficiency and the applicant’s right to a response from the employer

The court explicitly chose not to enter into the merits of the claims regarding salary, MACP, or arrears

Instead, it applied a standard judicial practice in service law where the respondent authority is mandated to exercise its administrative function by passing a speaking order, thereby providing a clear legal basis for any further challenge if the applicant remains aggrieved

It directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with the law, within thirty (30) days of receiving the order

The court further held that if the decision is in favor of the applicant, consequential reliefs must be provided within forty-five (45) days thereafter

No order was made as to costs