Authorities directed to decide claims for counting past service for terminal benefits via reasoned and speaking orders.

The applicant, currently serving as a Principal at Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV) No. 1, Kota, filed an Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

He sought the counting of his past services rendered as a Primary Teacher (PRT) in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) from 1993 to 2001, and as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS) from 2001 to 2012, for the purpose of releasing pro-rata terminal benefits and DCRG liabilities.

The applicant claimed that despite submitting multiple representations in 2013 and a legal notice in 2025, the respondents had not decided on his request.

During the hearing, the applicant restricted his prayer to seeking a direction for the respondents to consider a fresh, comprehensive representation in a time-bound manner.

Whether the Tribunal should direct the respondents to decide upon the applicant's grievance regarding the counting of past services through a reasoned and speaking order.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications for the redressal of grievances by government servants.

The principle of administrative law that requires public authorities to dispose of service-related representations within a reasonable timeframe by passing "reasoned and speaking orders" to ensure transparency and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the applicant’s claim regarding the eligibility of his past services for pensionary benefits.

Instead, it focused on the procedural delay by the respondents in addressing the applicant's long-standing representations.

Taking note of the applicant's willingness to file a fresh representation and the respondents' presence through counsel, the Tribunal found it appropriate to dispose of the matter at the admission stage.

The court reasoned that a time-bound direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order would provide the applicant with the necessary administrative resolution while maintaining the court's neutral stance on the underlying merits of the service claim.

The respondents were ordered to consider and dispose of this representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with the law, within forty-five days thereafter.

The court explicitly stated it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

No order as to costs was issued.