Withheld-salary claim must be decided as a representation by a reasoned order within six weeks, subject to eligibility.

The applicant was engaged as a Junior Resident in the Department of General Medicine, Government Medical College, Handwara, on an academic arrangement basis, pursuant to Office Order No. 23 dated 16 December 2023, and served from 19 December 2023 to 18 December 2024.

He claimed that he successfully completed the sanctioned tenure and that his performance was certified as “V. Good” by the Principal.

His first month’s salary had been retained as security and was to be released upon completion of the tenure, subject to CID verification.

The salary remained unpaid because the applicant’s CID verification was allegedly pending in connection with an FIR registered against his father in 1992; the father had subsequently been acquitted.

The applicant asserted that the criminal case against his father had no connection with him and that no adverse material or misconduct was attributable to him.

He submitted a representation dated 1 July 2025 seeking completion of the verification process and release of his salary, but the representation remained undecided.

During the hearing, the applicant agreed that the O.A. could be treated as a representation, and the respondents expressed no objection to that course.

Whether the applicant’s claim for release of salary for the period from 19 December 2023 to 18 December 2024 was required to be considered by the respondents, subject to verification of his entitlement and actual discharge of duties.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and decide the applicant’s pending representation and the related CID verification/re-verification issue within a prescribed timeframe.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the merits of the applicant’s entitlement to salary and interest at the stage of disposal of the O.A.

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that, where the parties consent, an Original Application may be disposed of by treating it as a representation and directing the competent authority to consider the claim in accordance with law.

The authority must consider the applicant’s assertions, supporting documents, applicable rules and conditions, and the question of actual entitlement, and must pass a reasoned, speaking and detailed order.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that, where the competent authority has not yet examined the claim on merits, the Tribunal should ordinarily refrain from expressing a final opinion and leave all questions of fact and law open.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The applicant alleged that he had completed the entire engagement period and that his salary was being withheld because of a verification issue concerning his father’s old criminal case.

However, since both parties agreed that the O.A. could be treated as a representation, the Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant was legally entitled to salary, interest, or release of the retained amount.

Instead, it directed the respondents to examine the claim in light of the applicable law, rules, eligibility conditions, supporting documents, and whether the applicant had actually worked during the relevant period.

The Tribunal preserved the respondents’ authority to determine any genuine impediment while requiring the decision to be reasoned and time-bound.

The respondents were directed to treat it as a representation, consider the applicant’s claim for salary and related reliefs, examine the accompanying documents and the pending verification/re-verification issue, and pass a comprehensive, reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of the Tribunal’s order, subject to the applicant’s entitlement, eligibility, applicable rules and confirmation that he actually worked from 19 December 2023 to 18 December 2024.

All questions of fact and law were left open, and no order as to costs was made.