Administrative representations cannot be rejected solely due to pending litigation in similar matters without independent examination.

The applicant was regularly appointed as a Sub Overseer Mistri (SOM) on February 6, 1989

Following cadre restructuring in 2003, his post was merged with that of Junior Engineer

Under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, he received his 1st and 2nd financial upgradations in 2008 and 2009, respectively

Upon completing 30 years of service on February 6, 2019, he became eligible for the 3rd MACP in the Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 5400/-

Despite multiple representations and a previous Tribunal direction in OA No. 452/2025 to pass a reasoned order, the respondents issued an impugned order dated March 2, 2026, rejecting his claim

The rejection was based solely on the pendency of a writ petition (UOI v. S.K. Gaur & Ors.) in the Hon'ble High Court involving similar issues

1. Whether the respondent authority was justified in rejecting the applicant's claim for 3rd MACP benefits solely on the grounds of a pending writ petition in an unrelated case

2. Whether the impugned order dated March 2, 2026, complied with the legal requirement of being a "reasoned and speaking order" based on the applicant's service records and the MACP Scheme

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding applications for redressal of grievances

The principles governing the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, which mandates three financial upgradations on the completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of regular service

The administrative law principle that a "reasoned and speaking order" must demonstrate an independent application of mind to the specific facts, service records, and relevant rules of the claimant, rather than relying on external legal advice or the mere pendency of litigation in other matters

The Tribunal observed that the respondent authority failed to examine the applicant’s entitlement based on his specific service record or the provisions of the MACP Scheme

Instead of determining whether the applicant met the 30-year criteria, the Senior Personnel Officer rejected the representation based on a stay order granted by the High Court in UOI v. S.K. Gaur, a decision taken on the advice of counsel

The Tribunal found this approach "contrary to the directions" previously issued by the Tribunal

It noted that the competent authority appeared unfamiliar with departmental rules, as they failed to discuss relevant rules or the applicant's eligibility, resulting in an order that lacked the necessary legal and factual scrutiny required for an quasi-judicial determination

The Tribunal quashed the order dated March 2, 2026; directed the General Manager, North Central Railway, to reconsider the applicant's case by examining his service record and entitlement under the MACP Scheme in accordance with the law; and ordered that a reasoned and speaking order must be passed within three months of receiving the certified copy