Administrative authorities must decide pending representations for technical resignation and service continuity within a stipulated period.

The applicant joined the Northeast Frontier Railway (Katihar Division) as a Trackman on 02.12.2005

Following his selection for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in the North Central Railway (Prayagraj Division), he obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and applied for relief on 28.01.2008, subsequently joining the new post on 22.01.2008

The applicant sought to have his resignation treated as a "technical resignation" to ensure continuity of service from 2005 for pensionary benefits and conversion from the New Pension Scheme (NPS) to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS)

The respondents (Prayagraj Division) claimed they had no record of his resignation, making conversion to OPS impossible

The applicant filed this O.A. seeking a direction to the respondents to recognize his service continuity

1. Whether the respondents are required to treat the applicant’s resignation as a technical resignation to grant continuity of service and pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme

2. Whether the lack of administrative records regarding the applicant’s relief and resignation precludes the processing of his representation for service continuity

The court’s decision is based on the administrative principles governing "technical resignation" and service continuity for employees moving between government departments or divisions, as well as the "rules, regulations, and extant circulars" of the Indian Railways regarding the conversion from the New Pension Scheme to the Old Pension Scheme

The court emphasized the administrative duty to decide on pending representations within a reasonable timeframe

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had indeed obtained an NOC and submitted an application for relief on 28.01.2008, yet the respondents had failed to take action on said application

While the Northern Railway contended that records of the resignation were unavailable, the Tribunal noted that the primary failure lay in the respondents' lack of processing the applicant's original request

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the conversion to OPS, the Tribunal focused on the procedural lapse

It determined that because the records were dated, the applicant should provide a fresh copy of his 2008 application to facilitate a formal decision by the authorities

The Tribunal maintained a neutral stance on the ultimate entitlement, choosing to remit the matter back to the administrative authorities for a time-bound determination

The respondents were ordered to decide the said representation in accordance with applicable rules and circulars within two months of receipt

Consequently, the O.A. and M.A. were dismissed (effectively disposed of) with no order as to costs