Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2788
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Sanjeev Gupta, Judicial Member, Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
Vikram Charbatiya – Appellant
Versus
Information Department – Respondent
Original Application No. 61/227/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohinder Kumar
For the Respondents: Rajesh Thapa
The court directed the administrative authority to resolve a seniority dispute by treating the application as a representation and deciding it through a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated timeframe.
Headnote:The matter pertains to a dispute regarding the tentative seniority list of Cultural Assistants. The applicant, promoted on 23.02.2019, contended that another employee was erroneously placed above him in the seniority list and that a representation filed on 16.02.2016 remained undecided. The court noted the applicant's grievance regarding the lack of a decision on the representation. The primary issue was whether the administrative authority should be directed to decide upon the applicant's representation against the tentative seniority list. The court observed that since the department had not yet finalized the seniority of the Cultural Assistants, the appropriate remedy was to ensure the representation is decided through a reasoned process. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, without entering into the merits of the case, with a direction to respondents to treat a copy of this O.A. as representation of the applicant and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding erroneous placement in a tentative seniority list and non-decision of representation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention on the prematurity of the application versus the request for a time-bound decision on representation. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. direction to the authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation within six weeks. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
Hearing through video conferencing
O R D E R
Per:- Pragya Sahay Saksena, Administrative Member
Mr. Mohinder Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite being promoted as Cultural Assistant on 23.02.2019, erroneously the name of private Respondent No.5 appears in the tentative seniority list above the applicant.
2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has filed objections/representation against the tentative seniority list on 16.02.2016, however, the same has not been decided till date.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Thapa, learned D.A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance notice submitted that the instant O.A. is premature as respondents’ department is yet to take a final call on the seniority of the Cultural Assistants to be promoted.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied, at this stage, if a direction is issued to the respondents to treat a copy of this O.A. as representation of the applicant and decide the same within a time frame.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this O.A. pending and same can be disposed of in the manner as prayed for by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, without entering into the merits of the case, with a direction to respondents to treat a copy of this O.A. as representation of the applicant and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. A copy of the speaking order shall also be communicated to the applicant.
7. With the above direction, the O.A. stand disposed of.
8. No order as to costs.
