Administrative authorities must decide pending representations through reasoned and speaking orders within a stipulated timeframe.

The 27 applicants are Loco Pilots (Goods) employed within the Dhanbad Division of the East Central Railway

They approached the Tribunal seeking reliefs related to their service conditions, stating that a prior representation submitted in 2020 regarding their grievances remained undecided and had since become stale

The applicants moved Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 171/2026 for permission to pursue the Original Application (OA) jointly

During the oral hearing on March 27, 2026, the applicants' counsel requested liberty to file a fresh representation to be decided by the competent authority within a stipulated timeframe, rather than adjudicating the merits of the OA at this stage

1. Whether the applicants, having a common grievance, are entitled to pursue a joint application under the relevant procedural rules?

2. Whether the respondent authority should be directed to decide upon a fresh representation by way of a reasoned and speaking order?

The Tribunal applied Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which allows multiple applicants to join in a single application if they share a common grievance and cause of action

the court relied on the administrative law principle requiring authorities to dispose of representations through "reasoned and speaking orders" to satisfy the principles of natural justice

The Tribunal examined the procedural validity of the joint application and found that the 27 Loco Pilots shared a common cause of action, thereby satisfying Rule 4(5)(a) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, provided individual court fees were paid

On the substantive request, the Tribunal noted the applicants’ submission that their 2020 representation was outdated

Since the respondents expressed no objection to a directed administrative review, the Tribunal found the prayer for a time-bound decision to be "innocuous"

The Tribunal emphasized that by directing the respondents to consider the representation, it was not expressing any opinion on the actual merits of the applicants' claims, leaving all legal points open for the respondents' consideration

It granted the applicants liberty to pursue the matter jointly.

The respondent authority was directed to dispose of the applicants' fresh representation within 60 days of receipt by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the case.

No order as to costs was issued.