Authorities must decide, within a reasonable time, claims to convert removal from service into compulsory retirement.

Late Shri S. Lakkanna, husband of the applicant, was appointed as a temporary Gardener in 1981 and was subsequently made quasi-permanent with effect from 27 June 1984.

Following allegations of unauthorised absence, including absence totalling 137 days during 10 May 1999–17 January 2000 and 501 days during 7 March 2000–5 March 2002, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, culminating in an order of removal from service dated 8 July 2003.

On 12 January 2024, late Shri Lakkanna sought modification of the penalty of removal to compulsory retirement on humanitarian grounds.

Shri Lakkanna died on 27 April 2024. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 5 June 2024 requesting conversion of the penalty so that she could become eligible for family pension.

The representation remained pending, leading her to file the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the respondents were required to consider and decide the pending request for conversion of late Shri Lakkanna’s penalty of removal from service into compulsory retirement on humanitarian grounds.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction requiring Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to finalise her representation concerning such conversion and consequential pensionary benefits.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 over the applicant’s service-related grievance.

The disciplinary action against late Shri Lakkanna had been taken under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which governs major-penalty disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law principle that a competent authority must consider and dispose of a pending representation or statutory/service-related claim within a reasonable time and in accordance with law.

The Tribunal noted that the original penalty of removal had been imposed in 2003 after disciplinary proceedings, and that the respondents did not dispute the pendency of the subsequent request for modification of that penalty.

Although the respondents referred to the employee’s repeated unauthorised absence and the absence of a timely appeal against the original penalty, the question before the Tribunal was whether the later representation seeking conversion had been duly examined and decided.

Since the second and third respondents remained engaged in correspondence and had not passed a reasoned decision on the applicant’s request, the Tribunal held that the claim could not remain undecided indefinitely.

The humanitarian circumstances, including the employee’s death and the applicant’s request for family pension, justified directing the authorities to finalise the matter, without prejudging the merits of the requested conversion.

Compliance was directed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.