Authorities must decide representations for enhanced honorarium through a reasoned order within six weeks.

The 16 applicants were former railway Cashiers, Senior Cashiers, Inspectors Cashier, and cash-and-pay staff of North Central Railway.

They claimed payment of arrears arising from revised and enhanced honorarium for performing extra duties beyond regular working hours for the period from July 2009 to 2013.

Their claim relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Rajiv Gupta v. Ministry of Railways, OA No. 1157/2015, concerning enhanced honorarium, which was stated to have been upheld by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 525/2017 and thereafter by dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court.

The applicants had submitted a representation dated 5 December 2025 and relied on an internal communication dated 12 November 2025.

They sought a direction requiring the respondents to consider and decide their representation.

The respondents did not appear, although the applicants stated that advance service had been effected.

The Tribunal also allowed the applicants’ applications to contest jointly and to file certain documents and translated copies subsequently.

Whether the applicants’ representation dated 5 December 2025 seeking revised and enhanced honorarium for extra duties should be considered by the competent railway authority in light of the decision in Rajiv Gupta v. Ministry of Railways.

Whether the Tribunal should adjudicate the applicants’ entitlement to arrears at the admission stage, or instead direct the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the pending representation.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, holding that a pending representation raising a claim founded on an allegedly applicable judicial precedent should be considered and decided by the competent authority through a reasoned and speaking order.

It relied upon the legal position stated in Rajiv Gupta v. Ministry of Railways, OA No. 1157/2015, regarding revised and enhanced honorarium for cashiers and cash-and-pay staff performing extra duties beyond regular working hours; that decision was stated to have been upheld by the High Court and thereafter by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP.

The Tribunal did not finally determine the applicants’ substantive entitlement and left the respondents free to decide the representation in accordance with law.

The applicants sought a limited procedural relief rather than an immediate adjudication of the monetary claim.

Since their representation dated 5 December 2025 remained pending and invoked the precedent in Rajiv Gupta, the Tribunal considered that natural justice required the competent authority to examine the claim and communicate its decision by a reasoned and speaking order.

The absence of appearance by the respondents did not lead the Tribunal to grant the claimed arrears directly.

Instead, the Tribunal preserved the respondents’ authority to assess the factual and legal merits, including the applicability of the earlier decision, while requiring consideration within a defined time period.

It directed the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 5 December 2025 in light of the decision dated 2 June 2016 in OA No. 1157/2015—although paragraph 12 of the order refers to the date as 2 June 2012—and to pass a reasoned and speaking order preferably within six weeks from receipt or production of the certified copy of the order.

Both miscellaneous applications were allowed and disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.